Cadmium exposure and age-associated DNA methylation changes in non-smoking women from northern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA methylation changes with age, and may serve as a biomarker of aging. Cadmium (Cd) modifies cellular processes that promote aging and disrupts methylation globally. Whether Cd modifies aging processes by influencing establishment of age-associated methylation marks is currently unknown. In this pilot study, we characterized methylation profiles in > 450 000 CpG sites in 40 non-smoking women (age 40–80) differentially exposed to environmental Cd from Thailand. Based on specific gravity adjusted urinary Cd, we classified them as high (HE) and low (LE) exposed and age-matched within 5 years. Urinary Cd was defined as below 2 µg/l in the LE group. We predicted epigenetic age (DNAm-age) using two published methods by Horvath and Hannum and examined the difference between epigenetic age and chronologic age (Δage). We assessed differences by Cd exposure using linear mixed models adjusted for estimated white blood cell proportions, BMI, and urinary creatinine. We identified 213 age-associated CpG sites in our population (P < 10−4). Counterintuitively, the mean Δage was smaller in HE vs. LE (Hannum: 3.6 vs. 7.6 years, P = 0.0093; Horvath: 2.4 vs. 4.5 years, P = 0.1308). The Cd exposed group was associated with changes in methylation (P < 0.05) at 12, 8, and 20 age-associated sites identified in our population, Hannum, and Horvath. From the results of this pilot study, elevated Cd exposure is associated with methylation changes at age-associated sites and smaller differences between DNAm-age and chronologic age, in contrast to expected age-accelerating effects. Cd may modify epigenetic aging, and biomarkers of aging warrant further investigation when examining Cd and its relationship with chronic disease and mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".