Assessing biological aging: the origin of deficit accumulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health of individuals is highly heterogeneous, as is the rate at which they age. To account for such heterogeneity, we have suggested that an individual's health status can be represented by the number of health deficits (broadly defined by biological and clinical characteristics) that they accumulate. This allows health to be expressed in a single number: the frailty index (FI) is the ratio of the deficits present in a person to the total number of deficits considered (e.g. in a given database or experimental procedure). Changes in the FI characterize the rate of individual aging. The behavior of the FI is highly characteristic: it shows an age specific, nonlinear increase, (similar to Gompertz law), higher values in females, strong associations with adverse outcomes (e.g., mortality), and a universal limit to its increase (at FI ~0.7). These features have been demonstrated in dozens of studies. Even so, little is known about the origin of deficit accumulation. Here, we apply a stochastic dynamics framework to illustrate that the average number of deficits present in an individual is the product of the average intensity of the environmental stresses and the average recovery time. The age-associated increase in recovery time results in the accumulation of deficits. This not only explains why the number of deficits can be used to estimate individual differences in aging rates, but also suggests that targeting the recovery rate (e.g. by preventive or therapeutic interventions) will decrease the number of deficits that individuals accumulate and thereby benefit life expectancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".