MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360942071 · doi:10.1007/s11357-023-00731-7

Centenarian clocks: epigenetic clocks for validating claims of exceptional longevity

2023· article· en· W4360942071 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeroScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCentenarianLongevityEpigeneticsBiologyGerontologyEvolutionary biologyPsychologyGeneticsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Claims surrounding exceptional longevity are sometimes disputed or dismissed for lack of credible evidence. Here, we present three DNA methylation-based age estimators (epigenetic clocks) for verifying age claims of centenarians. The three centenarian clocks were developed based on n = 7039 blood and saliva samples from individuals older than 40, including n = 184 samples from centenarians, 122 samples from semi-supercentenarians (aged 105 +), and 25 samples from supercentenarians (aged 110 +). The oldest individual was 115 years old. Our most accurate centenarian clock resulted from applying a neural network model to a training set composed of individuals older than 40. An epigenome-wide association study of age in different age groups revealed that age effects in young individuals (age < 40) are correlated (r = 0.55) with age effects in old individuals (age > 90). We present a chromatin state analysis of age effects in centenarians. The centenarian clocks are expected to be useful for validating claims surrounding exceptional old age.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.230 · 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