MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200090147 · doi:10.1002/dev.22222

Cumulative risks predict epigenetic age in adult survivors of extremely low birth weight

2021· article· en· W4200090147 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen J. Mathewson, Patrick O. McGowan, Wilfred C. de Vega, Katherine M. Morrison, Saroj Saigal, Ryan J. Van Lieshout, Louis A. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsdNaMEpigeneticsDNA methylationLow birth weightBody mass indexCpG siteBiological ageBirth weightYoung adultMedicinePhysiologyInternal medicineBiologyGerontologyGeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long‐term sequelae of extremely low birth weight (ELBW; ≤1000 g) may contribute to accelerated biological aging. This hypothesis was examined by analyzing a range of risk factors with a molecular age marker in adults born at ELBW or normal birth weight (NBW; ≥2500 g). DNAm age—the weighted average of DNA methylation at 353 cytosine–phosphate–guanine (CpG) sites from across the genome—was derived from a sample of 45 ELBW ( M age = 32.35 years) and 47 NBW control ( M age = 32.44 years) adults, using the Illumina 850k BeadChip Array. At two assessments undertaken 9 years apart (at 23 and 32 years), cumulative risks were summed from six domains with potential to affect physiological and psychological health: resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia, blood pressure, basal cortisol, grip strength, body mass index, and self‐esteem. At age 32 years, cumulative risks were differentially associated with epigenetic age in ELBW survivors (interaction, p < 0.01). For each additional risk factor they possessed, ELBW survivors ( B = 1.43) were biologically 2.16 years older than NBW adults ( B = –0.73), by the fourth decade of life. Developmental change, epigenetic maintenance, and intervention targets are discussed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207