A proposed path to explaining the unexplained anemia of aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 17% of people aged 65 years and older are anemic, and 10% of death certificates report anemia as a secondary cause of death in the United States. Nonetheless, anemia remains unexplained in 30%-50% of older adults. This unexplained anemia of aging (UAA) is a diagnosis of exclusion. The mechanism, impact, and progression of UAA remain unknown. At older ages, anemia adds to pre-existing co-morbidities with significant adverse health consequences, representing a compelling unmet clinical concern. The National Institute on Aging held a workshop in 2024 to discuss current knowledge and research opportunities. Topics included the epidemiology of anemia at older age and its clinical implications; probable mechanism(s) underlying UAA, that is, low-grade inflammation's effects on erythropoiesis; the role of microbiota in iron regulation in bone marrow; the importance of ruling out a diagnosis of leukemic clonal hematopoiesis (CH), which is more prevalent in older age; the role of senescence and aging governing hematopoiesis; and the effects of sex hormones on hematopoietic stem cell aging. Understanding the roles of these factors could reduce the proportion of the older anemic population whose anemia remains unexplained and offer insights into new potential diagnostic and intervention strategies. Speakers reviewed previous clinical trials in patients with UAA and CH. They discussed lessons learned and future research priorities, including efforts to develop new diagnostic algorithms and potential uses of machine learning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".