MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSIS OF MOUSE FRAILTY FOR PREDICTION OF BIOLOGICAL AGE AND LIFE EXPECTANCY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In mammals, the lack of accurate biomarkers for biological age is a current limitation to identifying novel aging interventions. Molecular biomarkers including DNA methylation hold promise but are invasive and currently expensive. The Frailty Index (FI) quantifies the accumulation of health-related deficits and is fast, cheap, and non-invasive. Studies have demonstrated that FI correlates with age and mortality risk in mice and humans. However, the FI has not been modelled to directly predict biological age or life expectancy. We tracked aging male C57BL/6 mice until their natural deaths, scoring them longitudinally with the FI. We find that FI score correlates with and is predictive of age and that some but not all parameters of the FI are individually well-correlated with age. To better predict chronological age, we performed an elastic net regression on the FI termed FRIGHT (Frailty Inferred Geriatric Health Timeline) Age. FRIGHT Age is a strong predictor of age (r2=0.73, median error=47.5 days), but is not superior to chronological age at predicting life expectancy. To better predict mortality, we built a random forest model termed the AFRAID (Analysis of Frailty and Death) score, which predicted survival at multiple ages (r2=0.375, median error = 46.4 days). The FRIGHT and AFRAID models were responsive to chronic treatment with enalapril (30mg/kg/day), an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor that extends healthspan, and methionine restriction, a dietary intervention that extends healthspan and lifespan. Our findings underscore the value of assessing non-invasive biomarkers for aging research and may help speed the identification of aging interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".