Artificial Intelligence-Driven Biological Age Prediction Model Using Comprehensive Health Checkup Data: Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The global increase in life expectancy has not shown a similar rise in healthy life expectancy. Accurate assessment of biological aging is crucial for mitigating diseases and socioeconomic burdens associated with aging. Current biological age prediction models are limited by their reliance on conventional statistical methods and constrained clinical information. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate an aging clock model using artificial intelligence, based on comprehensive health check-up data, to predict biological age and assess its clinical relevance. Methods: We used data from Koreans who underwent health checkups at the Seoul National University Hospital Gangnam Center as well as from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. Our model incorporated 27 clinical factors and employed machine learning algorithms, including linear regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, support vector machine, gradient boosting, and K-nearest neighbors. Model performance was evaluated using adjusted R2 and the mean squared error (MSE) values. Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analysis was conducted to interpret the model's predictions. Results: The Gradient Boosting model achieved the best performance with a mean (SE) MSE of 4.219 (0.14) and a mean (SE) R2 of 0.967 (0.001). SHAP analysis identified significant predictors of biological age, including kidney function markers, gender, glycated hemoglobin level, liver function markers, and anthropometric measurements. After adjusting for the chronological age, the predicted biological age showed strong associations with multiple clinical factors, such as metabolic status, body compositions, fatty liver, smoking status, and pulmonary function. Conclusions: Our aging clock model demonstrates a high predictive accuracy and clinical relevance, offering a valuable tool for personalized health monitoring and intervention. The model's applicability in routine health checkups could enhance health management and promote regular health evaluations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".