MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A blood biomarker of the pace of aging is associated with brain structure: replication across three cohorts

2024· article· en· W4391179489 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ethan T. Whitman, Calen P. Ryan, Wickliffe C. Abraham, Angela Addae, David L. Corcoran, Maxwell L. Elliott, Sean Hogan, David Ireland, Ross Keenan, Annchen R. Knodt, Tracy R. Melzer, Richie Poulton, Sandhya Ramrakha, Karen Sugden, Benjamin Williams, Jiayi Zhou, Ahmad R. Hariri, Daniel W. Belsky, Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurobiology of Aging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMedical Research CouncilBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsBiological ageFramingham Heart StudyDementiaCognitive declineCohortAging brainNeuroimagingEpigeneticsMedicineBiomarkerEtiologyBrain sizeNeurologyDiseaseGerontologyOncologyInternal medicineFramingham Risk ScoreBiologyMagnetic resonance imagingPsychiatryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeurobiology of AgingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207