Integrating DNA Methylation Measures of Biological Aging into Social Determinants of Health Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acceleration of biological processes of aging is hypothesized to drive excess morbidity and mortality in socially disadvantaged populations. DNA methylation measures of biological aging provide tools for testing this hypothesis. RECENT FINDINGS: Next-generation DNA methylation measures of biological aging developed to predict mortality risk and physiological decline are more predictive of morbidity and mortality than the original epigenetic clocks developed to predict chronological age. These new measures show consistent evidence of more advanced and faster biological aging in people exposed to socioeconomic disadvantage and may be able to record the emergence of socially determined health inequalities as early as childhood. Next-generation DNA methylation measures of biological aging also indicate race/ethnic disparities in biological aging. More research is needed on these measures in samples of non-Western and non-White populations. New DNA methylation measures of biological aging open opportunities for refining inference about the causes of social disparities in health and devising policies to eliminate them. Further refining measures of biological aging by including more diversity in samples used for measurement development is a critical priority for the field.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".