MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085317377 · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18446-0

Age and life expectancy clocks based on machine learning analysis of mouse frailty

2020· article· en· W3085317377 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Schultz, Alice E. Kane, Sarah J. Mitchell, Michael R. MacArthur, Elisa Warner, David S. Vogel, James R. Mitchell, Susan E. Howlett, Michael S. Bonkowski, David Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthGlenn Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsLife expectancyLongevityTimelineGerontologyPsychological interventionExpectancy theoryIdentification (biology)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyComputer scienceMedicineBiologyPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of genes and interventions that slow or reverse aging is hampered by the lack of non-invasive metrics that can predict the life expectancy of pre-clinical models. Frailty Indices (FIs) in mice are composite measures of health that are cost-effective and non-invasive, but whether they can accurately predict health and lifespan is not known. Here, mouse FIs are scored longitudinally until death and machine learning is employed to develop two clocks. A random forest regression is trained on FI components for chronological age to generate the FRIGHT (Frailty Inferred Geriatric Health Timeline) clock, a strong predictor of chronological age. A second model is trained on remaining lifespan to generate the AFRAID (Analysis of Frailty and Death) clock, which accurately predicts life expectancy and the efficacy of a lifespan-extending intervention up to a year in advance. Adoption of these clocks should accelerate the identification of longevity genes and 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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations134
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207