Associations between alcohol use and accelerated biological ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Harmful alcohol use is a leading cause of premature death and is associated with age‐related disease. Biological ageing is highly variable between individuals and may deviate from chronological ageing, suggesting that biomarkers of biological ageing (derived from DNA methylation or brain structural measures) may be clinically relevant. Here, we investigated the relationships between alcohol phenotypes and both brain and DNA methylation age estimates. First, using data from UK Biobank and Generation Scotland, we tested the association between alcohol consumption (units/week) or hazardous use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] scores) and accelerated brain and epigenetic ageing in 20,258 and 8051 individuals, respectively. Second, we used Mendelian randomisation (MR) to test for a causal effect of alcohol consumption levels and alcohol use disorder (AUD) on biological ageing. Alcohol use showed a consistent positive association with higher predicted brain age (AUDIT‐C: β = 0.053, p = 3.16 × 10 −13 ; AUDIT‐P: β = 0.052, p = 1.6 × 10 −13 ; total AUDIT score: β = 0.062, p = 5.52 × 10 −16 ; units/week: β = 0.078, p = 2.20 × 10 −16 ), and two DNA methylation‐based estimates of ageing, GrimAge (units/week: β = 0.053, p = 1.48 × 10 −7 ) and PhenoAge (units/week: β = 0.077, p = 2.18x10 −10 ). MR analyses revealed limited evidence for a causal effect of AUD on accelerated brain ageing (β = 0.118, p = 0.044). However, this result should be interpreted cautiously as the significant effect was driven by a single genetic variant. We found no evidence for a causal effect of alcohol consumption levels on accelerated biological ageing. Future studies investigating the mechanisms associating alcohol use with accelerated biological ageing are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".