Genetic Analysis of Perceived Youthfulness Reveals Differences in How Men's and Women’s Age Is Assessed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin aging is a natural process that occurs over time but can be accelerated by sun exposure. Measuring skin age in a large population can provide insight into the extent of skin damage from sun exposure and skin cancer risk. Understanding the genetics of skin aging, within and across sexes (males and females), could improve our understanding of the genetic drivers of both skin aging and skin cancer. We used UK Biobank data to examine the genetic overlap between perceived youthfulness and traits relevant to actinic photoaging. Our GWAS identified 22 genome-wide significant loci for women and 43 for men. The genetic correlation (rg) between perceived youthfulness in men and women was significantly less than unity (rg = 0.75, 95% confidence interval = 0.69-0.80), suggesting a gene-by-sex interaction. In women, perceived youthfulness was modestly correlated with keratinocyte cancer (rg = -0.19) and skin tanning (rg = 0.18). In men, perceived youthfulness was correlated with male-pattern baldness (rg = -0.23). This suggests that the genetic architecture of perceived youthfulness may differ between sexes, with genes influencing skin tanning and skin cancer susceptibility driving the difference in women, whereas genes influencing male-pattern baldness and other puberty-related traits drive the difference in men. We recommend that future genetic analysis of skin aging include a sex-stratified component.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".