MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406732443 · doi:10.18632/aging.206188

EpiAge: a next-generation sequencing-based ELOVL2 epigenetic clock for biological age assessment in saliva and blood across health and disease

2025· article· en· W4406732443 on OpenAlexaff
David Cheishvili, Sonia Do Carmo, Filippo Caraci, Margherita Grasso, A. Claudio Cuello, Moshe Szyf

Bibliographic record

VenueAging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigeneticsSalivaDiseaseBiologyBiological ageMedicineComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsPathologyInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgingSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207