MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788321129 · doi:10.1103/physreve.98.032302

Probing the network structure of health deficits in human aging

2018· article· en· W2788321129 on OpenAlexafffund
Spencer G. Farrell, Arnold Mitnitski, Olga Theou, Kenneth Rockwood, Andrew D. Rutenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsScale-free networkNetwork topologyComplex networkComputer scienceObservational studyMutual informationTopology (electrical circuits)EconometricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207