MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117155717 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1576

Building, testing, and learning from network models of human aging

2020· article· en· W3117155717 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Rutenberg, Spencer Farrell, Arnold Mitnitski, Kenneth Rockwood, Garrett Stubbings

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGompertz functionFrailty IndexObservational studyExponential functionEconometricsComputer scienceMachine learningStatisticsMathematicsGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have developed computational models of human aging that are based on complex networks of interactions between health attributes of individuals. Our “generic network model” (GNM) captures the population level exponential increase of mortality with age in Gompertz’s law together with the exponential decrease of health as measured by the frailty index (FI). Our GNM includes only random accumulation of damage, with no programmed aging. Our GNM allows large populations of model individuals to be quickly generated with detailed individual health trajectories. This allows us to explore individual damage propagation in detail. To facilitate comparison with observational data, we have also developed and tested new approaches to binarizing continuous-valued health data. To extract the most information out of available cross-sectional or longitudinal data, we have also reconstructed interactions from generalized network models that can predict individual health trajectories and mortality.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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