An Expert Consensus Statement on Biomarkers of Aging for Use in Intervention Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomarkers of aging serve as important outcome measures in longevity-promoting interventions. However, there is limited consensus on which specific biomarkers are most appropriate for human intervention studies. This work aimed to address this need by establishing an expert consensus on biomarkers of aging for use in intervention studies via the Delphi method. A 3-round Delphi study was conducted using an online platform. In Round 1, expert panel members provided suggestions for candidate biomarkers of aging. In Rounds 2 and 3, they voted on 500 initial statements (yes/no) relating to 20 biomarkers of aging. Panel members could abstain from voting on biomarkers outside their expertise. Consensus was reached when there was ≥70% agreement on a statement/biomarker. Of the 460 international panel members invited to participate, 116 completed Round 1, 87 completed Round 2, and 60 completed Round 3. Across the 3 rounds, 14 biomarkers met consensus that spanned physiological (eg, insulin-like growth factor 1, growth-differentiating factor-15), inflammatory (eg, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), functional (eg, muscle mass, muscle strength, hand grip strength, Timed-Up-and-Go, gait speed, standing balance test, frailty index, cognitive health, blood pressure), and epigenetic (eg, DNA methylation/epigenetic clocks) domains. Expert consensus identified 14 potential biomarkers of aging which may be used as outcome measures in intervention studies. Future aging research should identify which combination of these biomarkers has the greatest utility.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it