EpiAge: a next-generation sequencing-based ELOVL2 epigenetic clock for biological age assessment in saliva and blood across health and disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
known for its connection to aging. Unlike traditional methods that require complex and extensive data, our model uses a simpler approach that is well-suited for next-generation sequencing technology, which is a more advanced method of analyzing DNA methylation. This new model overcomes some of the common challenges found in older methods, such as errors due to sample quality and processing variations. We tested EpiAgePublic with a large and varied group of over 4,600 people to ensure its accuracy. It performed on par with, and sometimes better than, more complicated models that use much more data for age estimation. We examined its effectiveness in understanding how factors like HIV infection and stress affect aging, confirming its usefulness in real-world clinical settings. Our results prove that our simple yet effective model, EpiAgePublic, can capture the subtle signs of aging with high accuracy. We also used this model in a study involving patients with Alzheimer's Disease, demonstrating the practical benefits of next-generation sequencing in making precise age-related assessments. This study lays the groundwork for future research on aging mechanisms and assessing how different interventions might impact the aging process using this clock.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".