Artificial intelligence for aging and longevity research: Recent advances and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The applications of modern artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms within the field of aging research offer tremendous opportunities. Aging is an almost universal unifying feature possessed by all living organisms, tissues, and cells. Modern deep learning techniques used to develop age predictors offer new possibilities for formerly incompatible dynamic and static data types. AI biomarkers of aging enable a holistic view of biological processes and allow for novel methods for building causal models-extracting the most important features and identifying biological targets and mechanisms. Recent developments in generative adversarial networks (GANs) and reinforcement learning (RL) permit the generation of diverse synthetic molecular and patient data, identification of novel biological targets, and generation of novel molecular compounds with desired properties and geroprotectors. These novel techniques can be combined into a unified, seamless end-to-end biomarker development, target identification, drug discovery and real world evidence pipeline that may help accelerate and improve pharmaceutical research and development practices. Modern AI is therefore expected to contribute to the credibility and prominence of longevity biotechnology in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry, and to the convergence of countless areas of research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".