Mapping Research Trends in Frailty and Nutrition: A Combined Bibliometric and Structured Review (2000-2024).

Background: Frailty, a multisystem decline in physiological reserves, is a key indicator of aging health. Nutrition is a major modifiable factor associated with its development and progression. This study provides a systematic scientometric analysis of global research trends in nutrition and frailty, thereby addressing a significant gap in the literature. Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database for the period 2000-2024. After rigorous screening, a total of 754 publications were included for bibliometric analysis. Using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package bibliometrix, we analyzed publication trends, collaboration networks (countries, institutions, authors), journal co-citations, reference bursts, and keyword co-occurrence. Additionally, the structured literature review of 257 studies was conducted to synthesize key findings on nutrition-frailty associations. Results: Analysis of 754 global publications revealed consistent growth. The United States and China led contributions. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was the leading institution. Nutrients (n = 89, 11.8%) published most frequently, while Journals of Gerontology Series A was the most co-cited journal (n = 2058). Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo had the highest publication count; Linda P. Fried was the most co-cited author. Keyword analysis identified frailty prevention and treatment as the predominant focus. The integrated the literature review specifically highlighted significant gaps, particularly in mechanistic insights and personalized nutrition interventions for frailty. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis maps the intellectual landscape of nutrition and frailty research. Through quantitative assessment of publication patterns, leading contributors, knowledge domains, and thematic evolution, we characterize the current paradigm and identify emerging directions. Crucially, the synthesis explicitly defines critical research voids, particularly the overreliance on observational evidence, the scarcity of interventional trials, and the lack of global diversity in study populations, thereby providing a clear direction for future interdisciplinary investigations.