MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414831486 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.131

335 The Dog Aging Project: An open science study of aging in companion dogs.

2025· article· en· W4414831486 on OpenAlexaff
Matt Kaeberlein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealthy agingSuccessful agingCompanion animalDiseaseLongitudinal studyLongevityTranslational research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Age is the greatest risk factor for most major causes of death and disability in developed nations. Although many aspects of aging are shared, the rate and order of various functional declines and onset of disease can vary greatly among individuals. The mechanisms underlying individual trajectories of aging are influenced by a complex combination of genes, environment and lifestyle that remains poorly understood. Most of what we know about the biology of aging comes from laboratory studies of inbred, lab-adapted species--yeast, worms, flies, and mice. While these laboratory models have facilitated rapid progress in identifying conserved mechanisms of aging, translation has been limited by the challenge of identifying causal determinants of aging in the real world. To better understand how genes and environment shape aging outside of the lab, we have turned to the companion dog, an animal that ages rapidly and shares the human environment. The Dog Aging Project is an open science, long-term longitudinal study of aging in tens of thousands of companion dogs. The objectives of this study are to identify the genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors that influence aging in dogs, to discover the underlying molecular mechanisms by which they do so, and to use the insights gained to increase the duration of healthy lifespan in dogs and people.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score1.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Open science

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesCategoryOpen scienceFrench-language works237,207