Human Ageing Genomic Resources: updates on key databases in ageing research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ageing is a complex and multifactorial process. For two decades, the Human Ageing Genomic Resources (HAGR) have aided researchers in the study of various aspects of ageing and its manipulation. Here we present the key features and recent enhancements of these resources, focusing on its six main databases. One database, GenAge, focuses on genes related to ageing, featuring 307 genes linked to human ageing and 2205 genes associated with longevity and ageing in model organisms. AnAge focuses on ageing, longevity, and life-history across animal species, containing data on 4645 species. DrugAge includes information about 1097 longevity drugs and compounds in model organisms such as mice, rats, flies, worms, and yeast. GenDR provides a list of 214 genes associated with the life-extending benefits of dietary restriction in model organisms. CellAge contains a catalogue of 866 genes associated with cellular senescence. The LongevityMap serves as a repository for genetic variants associated with human longevity, encompassing 3144 variants pertaining to 884 genes. Additionally, HAGR provides various tools as well as gene expression signatures of ageing, dietary restriction, and replicative senescence based on meta-analyses. Our databases are integrated, regularly updated, and manually curated by experts. HAGR is freely available online ( https://genomics.senescence.info/ ).
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.083 |
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".