Epigenetic signature of heterogeneity in aging: Findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Human aging does not follow a single trajectory. Epigenetic changes offer insight into the heterogeneity in aging by reflecting the combined influence of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors on the timing and progression of age-related changes beyond what chronological age alone can explain. Recent studies in cancer and aging underscore the importance of methylation variability as a marker of biological dysregulation. Methods We investigated the role of DNA methylation in aging heterogeneity by performing epigenome-wide differential methylation and variance association analyses in blood samples from 1,445 Canadians aged 45 to 85 from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Results We identified 448 differentially methylated regions and 488 differentially variable regions associated with health decline as measured by the health deficit accumulation Frailty Index, cognitive function, and physical function. These two classes of regions showed minimal overlap, with distinct gene coverage, suggesting that variability contributes a complementary signal to aging heterogeneity. Genes overlapped by differentially methylated regions were enriched for immune and inflammation-related pathways, whereas differentially variable regions highlighted additional localized, CpG□island–enriched signals shared across health domains, consistent with regionally structured rather than diffuse dysregulation. By integrating significant CpGs from both analyses, we constructed an epigenetic biomarker. The biomarker was associated with all-cause mortality and showed higher discrimination than biomarkers constructed from differential methylation or variability alone, with a similar pattern reproduced in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Conclusions These findings suggest that DNA methylation variability may provide a complementary dimension of epigenetic aging and support further evaluation in larger cohorts with more mortality events.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".