Physiological Dysregulation Proceeds and Predicts Health Outcomes Similarly in Chinese and Western Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A decade ago, we proposed an index of physiological dysregulation based on Mahalanobis distance (DM) that measures how far from the norm an individual biomarker profile is. While extensive validation has been performed, focus was mostly on Western populations with little comparison to developing countries, particularly at a physiological system level. The degree to which the approach would work in other sociocultural contexts and the similarity of dysregulation signatures across diverse populations are still open questions. METHODS: Using 2 data sets from China and 3 from Western countries (United States, United Kingdom, and Italy), we calculated DM globally and per physiological system. We assessed pairwise correlations among systems, difference with age, prediction of mortality and age-related diseases, and sensitivity to interchanging data sets with one another as the reference in DM calculation. RESULTS: Overall, results were comparable across all data sets. Different physiological systems showed distinct dysregulation processes. Association with age was moderate and often nonlinear, similarly for all populations. Mahalanobis distance predicted most health outcomes, although differently by physiological system. Using a Chinese population as the reference when calculating DM for Western populations, or vice versa, led to similar associations with health outcomes, with a few exceptions. CONCLUSIONS: While small differences were noticeable, they did not systematically emerge between Chinese and Western populations, but rather diffusively across all data sets. These findings suggest that DM presents similar properties, notwithstanding sociocultural backgrounds, and that it is equally effective in capturing the loss of homeostasis that occurs during aging in diverse industrial human populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".