MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111441242 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3387

Forecasting Individual Aging Trajectories and Survival with an Interpretable Network Model

2020· article· en· W3111441242 on OpenAlexaff
Spencer Farrell, Arnold Mitnitski, Kenneth Rockwood, Andrew D. Rutenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Computer scienceScalabilityMachine learningState variableArtificial intelligenceLongitudinal dataData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have built a computational model of individual aging trajectories of health and survival, containing physical, functional, and biological variables, conditioned on demographic, lifestyle, and medical background information. We combine techniques of modern machine learning with a network approach, where the health variables are coupled by an interaction network within a stochastic dynamical system. The resulting model is scalable to large longitudinal data sets, is predictive of individual high-dimensional health trajectories and survival, and infers an interpretable network of interactions between the health variables. The interaction network gives us the ability to identify which interactions between variables are used by the model, demonstrating that realistic physiological connections are inferred. We use English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) data to train our model and show that it performs better than standard linear models for health outcomes and survival, while also revealing the relevant interactions. Our model can be used to generate synthetic individuals that age realistically from input data at baseline, as well as the ability to probe future aging outcomes given an arbitrary initial health state.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207