MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402813896 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.24.24313672

Cross omics risk scores of inflammation markers are associated with all-cause mortality: The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2024· preprint· en· W4402813896 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anat Yaskolka Meir, Huan Yun, Jie Hu, Jun Li, Jiaxuan Liu, Alaina M. Bever, Andrew Ratanatharathorn, Mingyang Song, A. Heather Eliassen, Lori B. Chibnik, Karestan C. Koenen, Guillaume Paré, Meir J. Stampfer, Liming Liang

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsOmicsInflammationGerontologyMedicineLongitudinal studyBioinformaticsDemographyInternal medicineBiologyPathologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammation is a critical component of chronic diseases, aging progression, and lifespan. Omics signatures may characterize inflammation status beyond blood biomarkers. We leveraged genetics (Polygenic-Risk-Score; PRS), metabolomics (Metabolomic-Risk-Score; MRS), and epigenetics (Epigenetic-Risk-Score; ERS) to build multi-omics-multi-marker risk scores for inflammation status represented by the level of circulating C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL6), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa). We found that multi-omics risk-scores generally outperformed single-omics risk scores in prediction of all-cause mortality in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Compared with circulating inflammation biomarkers, some multi-omics risk scores had a higher HR for all cause-mortality when including both score and circulating IL6 in the same model (1-SD IL6 MRS-ERS: HR=1.77 [1.15-2.72] vs. 1-SD circulating IL6 HR=1.11 [0.75,1.66]; 1-SD IL6 PRS-MRS: HR=1.32 [1.21,1.45] vs. 1-SD circulating IL6 HR=1.31 [1.12, 1.53]; 1-SD PRS-MRS-ERS: HR=1.62 [1.04, 2.53] vs. 1-SD circulating IL6: HR=1.16 [0.77, 1.74]). In the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professional Follow-up Study with available omics, 1-SD of IL6 PRS and 1-SD IL6 PRS-MRS had HR=1.13 [1.00,1.27] and HR=1.13 [1.01,1.27], among individuals >65years without mutual adjustment of the score and circulating IL6. Our study demonstrated that some multi-omics scores for inflammation markers may characterize important inflammation burden for an individual beyond those represented by blood biomarkers and improve our prediction capability for aging process and lifespan.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→