MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417449077 · doi:10.3389/fragi.2025.1682873

Methylation and algorithms in biological aging: a scoping review

2025· article· en· W4417449077 on OpenAlex
Alison Ziesel, Jennifer Reeves, Αναστασία Μαλλίδου, Lorelei Newton, Ryan E. Rhodes, Jie Zhang, Theone Paterson, Hosna Jabbari

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNA methylationEpigeneticsIdentification (biology)Process (computing)MethylationBiological data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of DNA methylation in the process of biological aging is a particularly active area of research, where methylation changes may be a consequence or a driver in the deviation between biological and chronological age. We employ a scoping review strategy to analyze the results of 435 relevant research papers, 167 of which employed methylation-based strategies to interrogate biological age. Our work details the progression and refinement of these strategies over time, as well as the development of novel methylation-based clocks and algorithmic methods. Our chosen review strategy allows for the identification of research findings consistent and discordant with one another, as well as focusing on exciting, potential research areas regarding measurement, calculation, and assessment of epigenetic biological age.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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