{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01951219512195122, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01056910569105691, 'mean_word_length': 5.004878048780488, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools

The mouse clinical frailty index and the mouse frailty phenotype assessment are two recently developed tools used to assess frailty in mice. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the same mice are identified as frail with both tools and to examine the association of each of the assessment tools with age and frailty-related outcomes. Frailty was measured using both tools in old (~24 months; n = 36) C57BL/6 male mice. After 2 weeks, blood pressure and heart rate were measured and serum samples were collected for analysis of alanine aminotransferase, creatinine, and albumin levels. The mouse frailty phenotype assessment identified no mice as frail but modification of the assessment tool identified six mice as frail. The mouse clinical frailty index identified 16 mice as frail and the agreement between the two scales was 50.0%. Increasing clinical frailty index scores were correlated with low serum alanine aminotransferase, as well as decreased heart rate, and reduced heart rate variance. We conclude that, consistent with equivalent frailty assessment scales in humans, both tools have value but do not necessarily identify the same mice as frail.