Probing the network structure of health deficits in human aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We confront a network model of human aging and mortality in which nodes represent health attributes that interact within a scale-free network topology, with observational data that use both clinical and laboratory (preclinical) health deficits as network nodes. We find that individual health attributes exhibit a wide range of mutual information with mortality and that, with a reconstruction of their relative connectivity, higher-ranked nodes are more informative. Surprisingly, we find a broad and overlapping range of mutual information of laboratory measures as compared with clinical measures. We confirm similar behavior between most-connected and least-connected model nodes, controlled by the nearest-neighbor connectivity. Furthermore, in both model and observational data, we find that the least-connected (laboratory) nodes are damaged earlier than the most-connected (clinical) deficits. A mean-field theory of our network model captures and explains this phenomenon, which results from the connectivity of nodes and of their connected neighbors. We find that other network topologies, including random, small-world, and assortative scale-free networks, exhibit qualitatively different behavior. Our disassortative scale-free network model behaves consistently with our expanded phenomenology observed in human aging and so is a useful tool to explore mechanisms of and to develop predictive measures for human aging 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".