Bidirectional relationship between epigenetic age and stroke, dementia, and late-life depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronological age is an imperfect estimate of molecular aging. Epigenetic age, derived from DNA methylation data, provides a more nuanced representation of aging-related biological processes. We examine the bidirectional relationship between epigenetic age and brain health events (stroke, dementia, late-life depression) using data from 4,018 participants. Participants with a prior brain health event are 4% epigenetically older (β = 0.04, SE = 0.01), indicating these conditions are associated with accelerated aging beyond that captured by chronological age. Additionally, a one standard deviation increase in epigenetic age is associated with 70% higher odds of experiencing a brain health event in the next four years (OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.16–2.50), suggesting epigenetic age acceleration is not just a consequence but also a predictor of poor brain health. Mendelian Randomization analyses replicate these findings, supporting their causal nature. Our results support using epigenetic age as a biomarker to evaluate interventions aimed at preventing and promoting recovery after brain health events. Here, the authors examine the bidirectional relationship between epigenetic age and brain health events, suggesting that stroke and dementia accelerate our epigenetic age, while an accelerated epigenetic age increases the risk of these conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".