Biological Age: Difference between revisions

Line 32: Line 32:
! Advantage
! Advantage
! Disadvantage
! Disadvantage
! Main researchers
|-
|-
| MLR
| MLR
Line 43: Line 42:
* The standards of aging biomarkers lead to the paradox of CA
* The standards of aging biomarkers lead to the paradox of CA
* MLR also distorts the BA at the regression edge and ignores discontinuity in the aging rate{{pmid|6873212}}{{pmid|3226152}}{{pmid|950448}}
* MLR also distorts the BA at the regression edge and ignores discontinuity in the aging rate{{pmid|6873212}}{{pmid|3226152}}{{pmid|950448}}
| Hollingsworth et al{{pmid|5841151}} and Kroll and Saxtrup{{pmid|11708217}}
|-
|-
| PCA
| PCA
Line 54: Line 52:
|
|
* PCA cannot avoid the paradox of CA and some statistical deficiencies of MLR{{pmid|16318865}}
* PCA cannot avoid the paradox of CA and some statistical deficiencies of MLR{{pmid|16318865}}
| Nakamura et al,{{pmid|2737197}}{{pmid|2282902}} Nakamura and Miyao,{{pmid|12634284}} Nakamura et al,{{pmid|8026568}}{{pmid|9762521}} Nakamura and Miyao,{{pmid|17921421}} Nakamura et al,{{pmid|3226152}} Nakamura,<ref>75. Nakamura E. The assessment of physiological age based upon a principal component analysis of various physiological variables. J Kyoto Pref Univ Med. 1985;94:757–769. [Google Scholar]</ref> Nakamura and Miyao,{{pmid|18840798}} Nakamura et al,{{pmid|8803500}} Park et al,{{pmid|18597867}} Bai et al,{{pmid|19940465}} and Zhang{{pmid|25470806}}–{{pmid|24659482}}
|-
|-
| Hochschild’s method
| Hochschild’s method
Line 67: Line 64:
* Hochschild’s method is not based on the definition of BA
* Hochschild’s method is not based on the definition of BA
* A large number of subjects are required when this approach is adopted for another system{{pmid|20005245}}
* A large number of subjects are required when this approach is adopted for another system{{pmid|20005245}}
| Hochschild{{pmid|2684676}}{{pmid|2583248}}<ref>76. Hochschild R. Validating Biomarkers of Aging-Mathematical Approaches and Results of a 2462-Person Study. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]</ref>
|-
|-
| KDM
| KDM
Line 79: Line 75:
|
|
* The calculation of KDM is complicated{{pmid|20005245}}
* The calculation of KDM is complicated{{pmid|20005245}}
| Klemera and Doubal,{{pmid|16318865}} Levine,{{pmid|23213031}} Levine and Crimmins,{{pmid|25088793}} Cho et al{{pmid|20005245}} and Jee and Park{{pmid|28110151}}
|}
|}