MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403828827 · doi:10.7554/elife.102166.1

Social and environmental predictors of gut microbiome age in wild baboons

2024· preprint· en· W4403828827 on OpenAlexaff
Mauna Dasari, Kimberly Roche, David Jansen, Jordan A. Anderson, Susan C. Alberts, Jenny Tung, Jack A. Gilbert, Ran Blekhman, Sayan Mukherjee, Elizabeth A. Archie

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeGut microbiomeGut floraBiologyEcologyBioinformaticsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding why some individuals age faster than others is essential to evolutionary biology and geroscience, but measuring variation in biological age is difficult. One solution may lie in measuring gut microbiome composition because microbiota change with many age-related factors (e.g., immunity and behavior). Here we create a microbiome-based age predictor using 13,563 gut microbial profiles from 479 wild baboons collected over 14 years. The resulting “microbiome clock” predicts host chronological age. Deviations from the clock’s predictions are linked to demographic and socio-environmental factors that predict baboon health and survival: animals who appear old-for-age tend to be male, sampled in the dry season (for females), and high social status (both sexes). However, an individual’s “microbiome age” does not predict the attainment of developmental milestones or lifespan. Hence, the microbiome clock accurately reflects age and some social and environmental conditions, but not the pace of development or mortality risk.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLife→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→