Are skin senescence and immunosenescence linked within individuals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With advancing age, many organs exhibit functional deterioration. The age‐associated accumulation of senescent cells is believed to represent one factor contributing to this phenomenon. While senescent cells are found in several different organ systems, it is not known whether they arise independently in each organ system or whether their prevalence within an individual reflects that individual's intrinsic aging process. To address this question, we studied senescence in two different organ systems in humans, namely skin and T cells in 80 middle‐aged and older individuals from the Leiden Longevity Study. Epidermal p16INK4a positivity was associated with neither CD4+ nor CD8+ T‐cell immunosenescence phenotype composites (i.e., end‐stage differentiated/senescent T cells, including CD45RA+CCR7‐CD28‐CD27‐CD57+KLRG1+ T cells). Dermal p16INK4a positivity was significantly associated with the CD4+, but not with the CD8+ immunosenescence composite. We therefore conclude that there is limited evidence for a link between skin senescence and immunosenescence within individuals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".