A complex systems approach to aging biology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having made substantial progress understanding molecules, cells, genes and pathways, aging biology research is now moving toward integration of these parts, attempting to understand how their joint dynamics may contribute to aging. Such a shift of perspective requires the adoption of a formal complex systems framework, a transition being facilitated by large-scale data collection and new analytical tools. Here, we provide a theoretical framework to orient researchers around key concepts for this transition, notably emergence, interaction networks and resilience. Drawing on evolutionary theory, network theory and principles of homeostasis, we propose that organismal function is accomplished by the integration of regulatory mechanisms at multiple hierarchical scales, and that the disruption of this ensemble causes the phenotypic and functional manifestations of aging. We present key examples at scales ranging from sub-organismal biology to clinical geriatrics, outlining how this approach can potentially enrich our understanding of aging. The authors discuss how adopting a complex systems perspective is a crucial step in advancing our understanding of the aging process and requires fundamental alteration of the questions being asked and the methods used to answer them.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it