Clinical Assessment of Aging

Yong Kyun Roh

doi:10.5124/jkma.2007.50.3.221

Journal List > J Korean Med Assoc > v.50(3) > 1041869

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Roh: Clinical Assessment of Aging

Focused Issue of This Month

Etiologies of Aging and Evidence-based Antiaging Therapy

Journal of the Korean Medical Association

Journal of the Korean Medical Association 2007; 50(3): 221-227.

Published online: 31 March 2007

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2007.50.3.221

Clinical Assessment of Aging

Yong Kyun Roh, MD

Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Korea. rohyk@hallym.ac.kr

Abstract

There are two ways to assess aging: to evaluate the function and to estimate the biological age. The biological age is estimated objectively by measuring the level of biological aging, taking apart with disease. It is measured with some biomarkers, which reflect the change of organ function and body with aging. It is, however, difficult to use in clinical practice. The evaluation of function is more practical and easier to clinicians. The parameters used include Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) to evaluate the level of cognitive function. Balance test, standing up from chair, and walking pace can be checked to evaluate the physical function. Each method has its own limitations in evaluating the degree of aging precisely.

Keywords: Aging, Assessment, Biological Age, Function

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Korean version of passport to aging successfully.

Table 1

Items of Hochschild-scan

Table 2

Korean Activities of Daily Living(K-ADL)

Table 3

Korean Version of Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE-K)

Table 4

Short physical performance battery

References

1. Korean Geriatrics Society. Textbook of Geriatric Medicine. 2005. 2nd ed. Seoul: Medical Publishing;28–30.

2. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Human aging: usual and successful. Science. 1987. 237:143–149.

3. Cho BL. Assessment of markers of aging. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2005. 26:S68–S74.

4. Baker GT 3rd, Sprott RL. Biomarkers of aging. Exp Gerontol. 1988. 23:223–239.

5. Miller RA. When will the biology of aging become useful? Future landmarks in biomedical gerontology. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997. 45:1258–1267.

6. Nakamura E, Miyao K. Further evaluation of the basic nature of the human biological aging process based on a factor analysis of age-related physiological variables. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003. 58:196–204.

7. Hochschild R. Can an index of aging be constructed for evaluating treatments to retard aging rates. A 2,462-person study. J Gerontol. 1990. 45:B187–B214.

8. Kang YK. Clinical Assessment of Aging. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2006. 27:S602–S604.

9. Ueno LM, Yamashita Y, Moritani T, Nakamura E. Biomarkers of aging in women and the rate of longitudinal changes. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci. 2003. 22:37–46.

10. Won CW, Yang KY, Rho YG, Kim SY, Lee EJ, Yoon JL, Cho KH, Shin HC, Cho BR, Oh JR, Yoon DK, Lee HS, Lee YS. The Development of Korean Activities of Daily Living(K-ADL) and Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living(K-IADL) Scale. J Korean Geriatr Soc. 2002. 6:107–120.

11. Kwon YC, Park JH. A Validation Study of the Korean-Version of Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE-K). J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 1989. 28:125–135.

12. Cho BL. Physical Performance Measures in the Elderly. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2003. 24:689–695.

13. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994. 49:M85–M94.

14. Flaherty JH, Morley JE, Murphy D, Wasserman M. The development of outpatient clinical Glidepaths TM. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002. 50:1886–1901.

TOOLS

Similar articles