Animal Models Relevant for Geroscience: Current Trends and Future Perspectives in Biomarkers, and Measures of Biological Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For centuries, aging was considered inevitable and immutable. Geroscience provides the conceptual framework to shift this focus toward a new view that regards aging as an active biological process, and the biological age of an individual as a modifiable entity. Significant steps forward have been made toward the identification of biomarkers for and measures of biological age, yet knowledge gaps in geroscience are still numerous. Animal models of aging are the focus of this perspective, which discusses how experimental design can be optimized to inform and refine the development of translationally relevant measures and biomarkers of biological age. We provide recommendations to the field, including: the design of longitudinal studies in which subjects are deeply phenotyped via repeated multilevel behavioral/social/molecular assays; the need to consider sociobehavioral variables relevant for the species studied; and finally, the importance of assessing age of onset, severity of pathologies, and age-at-death. We highlight approaches to integrate biomarkers and measures of functional impairment using machine learning approaches designed to estimate biological age as well as to predict future health declines and mortality. We expect that advances in animal models of aging will be crucial for the future of translational geroscience but also for the next chapter of medicine.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".