Measuring healthy ageing: current and future tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human ageing is a complex, multifactorial process characterised by physiological damage, increased risk of age-related diseases and inevitable functional deterioration. As the population of the world grows older, placing significant strain on social and healthcare resources, there is a growing need to identify reliable and easy-to-employ markers of healthy ageing for early detection of ageing trajectories and disease risk. Such markers would allow for the targeted implementation of strategies or treatments that can lessen suffering, disability, and dependence in old age. In this review, we summarise the healthy ageing scores reported in the literature, with a focus on the past 5 years, and compare and contrast the variables employed. The use of approaches to determine biological age, molecular biomarkers, ageing trajectories, and multi-omics ageing scores are reviewed. We conclude that the ideal healthy ageing score is multisystemic and able to encompass all of the potential alterations associated with ageing. It should also be longitudinal and able to accurately predict ageing complications at an early stage in order to maximize the chances of successful early intervention.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".