Comparing Biological Age Estimates Using Domain-Specific Measures From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have shown that estimates of biological age (BA) can predict health-related outcomes in older adults. Often, researchers employ multiple measures belonging to a variety of biological/physiological systems, and assess the validity of BA estimates by how well they approximate chronological age (CA). However, it is not clear whether this is the best approach for judging a BA estimate, or whether certain groups of measures are more informative to this end. Using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, we composed panels of biological measures based on the physiological systems/domains they belong to (blood, organ function, physical/cognitive performance), and also composed a panel of measures that optimized the association of BA with CA. We then compared BA estimates for each according to their association with CA and health-related outcomes, including frailty, multimorbidity, chronic condition domains, disability, and health care utilization. Although BA estimated using all 40 measures (r = 0.74) or our age-optimized panel (r = 0.77) most closely approximated CA, the strength of associations to health-related outcomes was comparable or weaker than that of our panel composed only of physical performance measures (CA r = 0.59). All BA estimates were significantly associated to the outcomes considered, with exception to the neurological and musculoskeletal disease domains, and only varied slightly by sex. In summary, while the approximation of CA is important to consider when estimating BA, the strength of associations to prospective outcomes may be of greater importance. Hence, the context in which BA is estimated should be influenced by an investigator's specific research goals.
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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".