Centenarian clocks: epigenetic clocks for validating claims of exceptional longevity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".