Biological Age: Difference between revisions

    From Longevity Wiki
    Line 23: Line 23:
    * '''Hochschild’s Method''' differs from MLR and PCA by making chronological age an independent variable. It aims to estimate biological age by adjusting chronological age based on specific biomarkers.
    * '''Hochschild’s Method''' differs from MLR and PCA by making chronological age an independent variable. It aims to estimate biological age by adjusting chronological age based on specific biomarkers.
    * '''Klemera and Doubal’s Method (KDM)''' shares a similar concept with Hochschild’s method but uses a more complex statistical approach. It treats chronological age as an independent variable and incorporates multiple biomarkers to estimate biological age.
    * '''Klemera and Doubal’s Method (KDM)''' shares a similar concept with Hochschild’s method but uses a more complex statistical approach. It treats chronological age as an independent variable and incorporates multiple biomarkers to estimate biological age.
    * '''Deep Learning'''-based approaches represent an emerging and powerful method for biological age estimation. Leveraging complex neural network architectures, these methods can analyze large datasets of biomarkers, integrating diverse types of biological data. Deep learning models can uncover intricate patterns in the data that may be missed by traditional statistical techniques, offering potentially more accurate and personalized biological age estimations. However, they require large, well-curated datasets to be effective.


    === Role of Chronological Age ===
    === Role of Chronological Age ===

    Revision as of 18:08, 30 January 2024

    Biological Age (BA) is a concept used to assess an individual's aging status, offering a more nuanced understanding than Chronological Age (CA). Chronological age refers simply to the amount of time that has elapsed since a person's birth, while biological age provides a measure of aging based on various physiological, biochemical, and molecular factors. This distinction is crucial because individuals of the same chronological age can exhibit significantly different aging processes and health statuses.

    Key Aspects of Biological Age

    Biological age is estimated as the equivalent age within the same-sex population which corresponds to an individual's mortality risk.

    1. Biomarkers: Biological age is typically determined by analyzing a range of biomarkers. These can include genetic markers, epigenetic alterations, cellular senescence, telomere length, metabolic markers, and more. The specific biomarkers chosen depend on the method of estimation and the focus of the study.
    2. Health and Functionality: Biological age reflects the functional state of an individual's organs and systems. A lower biological age compared to chronological age might indicate better health and lower risk for age-related diseases, whereas a higher biological age suggests accelerated aging and potentially increased health risks.
    3. Variability: Unlike chronological age, which is uniform and progresses at a constant rate (one year per year), biological age can vary significantly between individuals. Factors such as lifestyle, genetics, environment, and disease can influence the rate at which a person's biological systems age. For example, biological age estimated from blood markers ranged between 20-years younger and 20-years older than individuals' chronological age.[1]

    Importance in Research and Medicine

    1. Research Tool: In scientific research, biological age is valuable for understanding the aging process, identifying aging biomarkers, and evaluating the effectiveness of anti-aging interventions.
    2. Clinical Applications: In a clinical setting, biological age can be used to assess an individual's overall health status, predict the risk of age-related diseases, and personalize healthcare and treatment plans.

    Biological Age Estimation Methods

    Biological age estimation has emerged as a significant tool in gerontology, aiming to provide a more accurate measure of aging than chronological age.

    The accurate estimation of biological age has significant implications for clinical practice, including predicting disease onset and prognosis, improving the quality of life for the elderly, and promoting successful aging. Each method offers unique insights, and a comprehensive understanding of these methods can lead to better clinical decision-making and more effective interventions for aging-related conditions.

    Various methods have been developed to estimate biological age, each with its unique approach and criteria:[2]

    • Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) is a statistical technique that estimates biological age by relating several independent variables (biomarkers) to a dependent variable (chronological age). In this method, chronological age is used as a criterion for selecting biomarkers and is treated as an independent index.
    • Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is another statistical technique used in biological age estimation. PCA reduces the dimensionality of the data by transforming multiple biomarkers into a set of linearly uncorrelated variables, known as principal components.
    • Hochschild’s Method differs from MLR and PCA by making chronological age an independent variable. It aims to estimate biological age by adjusting chronological age based on specific biomarkers.
    • Klemera and Doubal’s Method (KDM) shares a similar concept with Hochschild’s method but uses a more complex statistical approach. It treats chronological age as an independent variable and incorporates multiple biomarkers to estimate biological age.
    • Deep Learning-based approaches represent an emerging and powerful method for biological age estimation. Leveraging complex neural network architectures, these methods can analyze large datasets of biomarkers, integrating diverse types of biological data. Deep learning models can uncover intricate patterns in the data that may be missed by traditional statistical techniques, offering potentially more accurate and personalized biological age estimations. However, they require large, well-curated datasets to be effective.

    Role of Chronological Age

    The role of chronological age in the estimation of biological age varies significantly between different methods. In MLR and PCA, chronological age is used as a criterion for selecting biomarkers. This means that the biomarkers are chosen based on how well they correlate with chronological age. In this context, chronological age is not an independent variable in the statistical model but rather a reference point against which the predictive power of biomarkers is measured.

    In contrast, Hochschild’s method and KDM treat chronological age as an independent variable. This means chronological age is directly incorporated into the model as one of the variables that predict biological age.

    Comparison

    Comparisons among MLR, PCA, Hochschild’s method, and KDM

    Method Proposed Core concept Advantage Disadvantage
    MLR 1965, Hollingsworth[3] Aging biomarkers are determined by the correlation with chronological age using MLR model
    • MLR is the preliminary method and is easy to operate
    • The standards of aging biomarkers lead to the paradox of chronological age
    • MLR also distorts the biological age at the regression edge and ignores discontinuity in the aging rate[4][5][6]
    PCA 1988, Nakamura[7] PCA uses fewer uncorrelated variables to explain the main variance
    • Biomarkers are uncorrelated variables[8]
    • PCA avoids the influence of regression edge in MLR[5]
    • PCA cannot avoid the paradox of chronological age and some statistical deficiencies of MLR[8]
    Hochschild’s method 1989, Hochschild[9] Hochschild’s method aims to select aging biomarkers according to their effects on life expectancy[9]
    • Hochschild’s method solves the paradox of chronological age
    • Hochschild’s method avoids statistical problems of MLR
    • Hochschild’s method is nonstandard and relatively complicated
    • Hochschild’s method is not based on the definition of biological age
    • A large number of subjects are required when this approach is adopted for another system[10]
    KDM 2006, Klemera and Doubal[8] KDM is based on minimizing the distance between m regression lines and m biomarker points in an m-dimensional space of all biomarkers[8]
    • KDM performed better than chronological age[11]
    • KDM is precise when compared with other methods[11][10][12]
    • KDM solves the paradox of chronological age[11][10]
    • The calculation of KDM is complicated[10]
    Deep learning 2015[13] Deep learning is a subfield of machine learning, where good features can be learned automatically using a general-purpose learning procedure[13]. Deep neural networks (DNNs)[14][15][16][17], convolutional neural networks (CNNs)[18][19], and recurrent neural networks (RNNs)[20] have been employed to build BA models in recent years.
    • Good at handling high-dimensional dataset[13]
    • The machine extracts features autonomously by learning[13]
    • Difficulty in building large data[14]
    • The existence of a “black box” and uncontrollable results
    • Excellent programming skills and computer hardware and software support required

    Used Biomarkers

    Comparisons of aging biomarkers among MLR, PCA, Hochschild’s method, and KDM

    Organ system PCA MLR Hochschild’s KDM
    Cardiovascular system Pulse pressure[21][22][23]
    Systolic blood pressure[7][24][25][26][27][28][29][12] Systolic blood pressure[11][30][3][6][12] Systolic blood pressure[12]
    Heart rate[7][24]
    Intima-media thickness[21][31][22]
    Maximum internal diameter of carotid artery[31][22]
    End diastolic velocity[21]
    Mitral valve annulus ventricular septum of the peak velocity of early filling[31]
    Mitral valve annulus lateral wall of peak velocity of early filling[21]
    Mitral annulus peak E anterior wall[22]
    Ratio of peak velocity of early filling to atrial filling[21]
    Respiratory system VO2 max[32][26]
    Forced expiratory volume in 1 second[32][25][26][27][28] Forced expiratory volume in 1 second[11][30][12] Forced expiratory volume in 1 second[33] Forced expiratory volume in 1 second[12]
    Forced vital capacity[7][24][29] Forced vital capacity[10] Forced vital capacity[33]
    Maximal mid expiratory flow rate 75/25[31] Vital capacity[3]
    Nervous system Trail making test[31][23]
    Digital symbol test[10][22] Digital symbol test[10]
    Memory test linking names with faces[10] Memory test linking names with faces[10]
    Memory test: which picture is at what place[10] Memory test: which picture is at what place[10]
    Speed test: pointing icons from 1 to 15 sequentially, mixed in random positions[10]
    Visual reaction time[10][32] Visual reaction time[33]
    Sequence of lamps[33]
    Alternate button tapping time with/without decision[33]
    Movement time with/without decision[33]
    Renal system Blood urea nitrogen[7][24][25][26][34][28][29] Blood urea nitrogen[11][30][12] Blood urea nitrogen[12]
    Serum creatinine[12] Serum creatinine[12]
    Cystatin C[21][31][22][23]
    Liver Serum albumin[25][26][34][28] Serum albumin[6]
    Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase[7][24] Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase[12] Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase[12]
    Glutamic pyruvic transaminase[29]
    Ratio of albumin to globulin[27]
    Lactate dehydrogenase[7][24][29]
    Serum globulin[6]
    Alkaline phosphatase[6]
    Hematologic system Erythrocyte sedimentation rate[26] Erythrocyte sedimentation rate[6]
    Mean corpuscular hemoglobin[27]
    Red blood cell count[28]
    Hematocrit[25]
    Hemoglobin concentration[7][24]
    Fibrinogen[21]
    Ferratin[12] Ferratin[12]
    Metabolism Glycosylated hemoglobin[26]
    Glucose[27][29] Glucose[6]
    Low-density cholesterol[26]
    Atherogenic index[7][24]
    Triglyceride[24] Triglycerides[30]
    Total cholesterol[29] Total cholesterol[11][30][3][12] Total cholesterol[12]
    Muscle and fat Grip strength[10][32] Grip strength[10][3]
    Soft lean mass[32]
    Waist circumference[32][26] Waist circumference[12] Waist circumference[12]
    Percent body fat[26]
    Sensory system Hearing threshold[26]
    Highest audible pitch[10] Highest audible pitch[10] Highest audible pitch[33]
    Light extinction test[3]
    Visual acuity[3]
    Auditory function[3]
    Vibrotactile sensitivity[3] Vibrotactile sensitivity[33]
    Auditory reaction time[10] Auditory reaction time[33]
    Focal range test using a Landolt ring[10] Visual accommodation[33]
    Genetic index Telomere restriction fragment[22]

    Further Reading

    • 2017, Common methods of biological age estimation [2]
    • 2023, Progress in biological age research [35]

    Todo

    • 2017, Biological Age Predictors [36]
    • 2022, Biological Age Predictors: The Status Quo and Future Trends [37]
    • 2021, Predictors of Biological Age: The Implications for Wellness and Aging Research [38]
    • 2023, Biological age estimation using circulating blood biomarkers [1]
    • 2021, Deep learning for biological age estimation [39]

    See Also

    References

    1. Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 Bortz J et al.: Biological age estimation using circulating blood biomarkers. Commun Biol 2023. (PMID 37884697) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    2. Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 Jia L et al.: Common methods of biological age estimation. Clin Interv Aging 2017. (PMID 28546743) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    3. Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Hollingsworth JW et al.: Correlations between tests of aging in Hiroshima subjects--an attempt to define "physiologic age". Yale J Biol Med 1965. (PMID 5841151) [PubMed] [Full text]
    4. Dubina TL et al.: Biological age and its estimation. II. Assessment of biological age of albino rats by multiple regression analysis. Exp Gerontol 1983. (PMID 6873212) [PubMed] [DOI]
    5. Jump up to: 5.0 5.1 Nakamura E et al.: Assessment of biological age by principal component analysis. Mech Ageing Dev 1988. (PMID 3226152) [PubMed] [DOI]
    6. Jump up to: 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Webster IW & Logie AR: A relationship between functional age and health status in female subjects. J Gerontol 1976. (PMID 950448) [PubMed] [DOI]
    7. Jump up to: 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Nakamura E et al.: Biological age versus physical fitness age. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1989. (PMID 2737197) [PubMed] [DOI]
    8. Jump up to: 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Klemera P & Doubal S: A new approach to the concept and computation of biological age. Mech Ageing Dev 2006. (PMID 16318865) [PubMed] [DOI]
    9. Jump up to: 9.0 9.1 Hochschild R: Improving the precision of biological age determinations. Part 1: A new approach to calculating biological age. Exp Gerontol 1989. (PMID 2684676) [PubMed] [DOI]
    10. Jump up to: 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 Cho IH et al.: An empirical comparative study on biological age estimation algorithms with an application of Work Ability Index (WAI). Mech Ageing Dev 2010. (PMID 20005245) [PubMed] [DOI]
    11. Jump up to: 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Levine ME: Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age?. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013. (PMID 23213031) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    12. Jump up to: 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 12.16 12.17 Jee H & Park J: Selection of an optimal set of biomarkers and comparative analyses of biological age estimation models in Korean females. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2017. (PMID 28110151) [PubMed] [DOI]
    13. Jump up to: 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 LeCun Y et al.: Deep learning. Nature 2015. (PMID 26017442) [PubMed] [DOI]
    14. Jump up to: 14.0 14.1 Putin E et al.: Deep biomarkers of human aging: Application of deep neural networks to biomarker development. Aging (Albany NY) 2016. (PMID 27191382) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    15. Mamoshina P et al.: Population Specific Biomarkers of Human Aging: A Big Data Study Using South Korean, Canadian, and Eastern European Patient Populations. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2018. (PMID 29340580) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    16. Mamoshina P et al.: Blood Biochemistry Analysis to Detect Smoking Status and Quantify Accelerated Aging in Smokers. Sci Rep 2019. (PMID 30644411) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    17. Gialluisi A et al.: Exploring domains, clinical implications and environmental associations of a deep learning marker of biological ageing. Eur J Epidemiol 2022. (PMID 34453631) [PubMed] [DOI]
    18. Pyrkov TV et al.: Extracting biological age from biomedical data via deep learning: too much of a good thing?. Sci Rep 2018. (PMID 29581467) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    19. Raghu VK et al.: Deep Learning to Estimate Biological Age From Chest Radiographs. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2021. (PMID 33744131) [PubMed] [DOI]
    20. Rahman SA & Adjeroh DA: Deep Learning using Convolutional LSTM estimates Biological Age from Physical Activity. Sci Rep 2019. (PMID 31388024) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    21. Jump up to: 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 Bai X et al.: Evaluation of biological aging process - a population-based study of healthy people in China. Gerontology 2010. (PMID 19940465) [PubMed] [DOI]
    22. Jump up to: 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 Zhang WG et al.: Select aging biomarkers based on telomere length and chronological age to build a biological age equation. Age (Dordr) 2014. (PMID 24659482) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    23. Jump up to: 23.0 23.1 23.2 Zhang W et al.: Model Construction for Biological Age Based on a Cross-Sectional Study of a Healthy Chinese Han population. J Nutr Health Aging 2017. (PMID 29188884) [PubMed] [DOI]
    24. Jump up to: 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 Nakamura E et al.: Biological age versus physical fitness age in women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1990. (PMID 2282902) [PubMed] [DOI]
    25. Jump up to: 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Nakamura E & Miyao K: A method for identifying biomarkers of aging and constructing an index of biological age in humans. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007. (PMID 17921421) [PubMed] [DOI]
    26. Jump up to: 26.00 26.01 26.02 26.03 26.04 26.05 26.06 26.07 26.08 26.09 26.10 Park J et al.: Developing a biological age assessment equation using principal component analysis and clinical biomarkers of aging in Korean men. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009. (PMID 18597867) [PubMed] [DOI]
    27. Jump up to: 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Ueno LM et al.: Biomarkers of aging in women and the rate of longitudinal changes. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci 2003. (PMID 12672981) [PubMed] [DOI]
    28. Jump up to: 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 Nakamura E & Miyao K: Sex differences in human biological aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008. (PMID 18840798) [PubMed] [DOI]
    29. Jump up to: 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 Nakamura E et al.: Effects of habitual physical exercise on physiological age in men aged 20-85 years as estimated using principal component analysis. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1996. (PMID 8803500) [PubMed] [DOI]
    30. Jump up to: 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 Borkan GA & Norris AH: Assessment of biological age using a profile of physical parameters. J Gerontol 1980. (PMID 6967883) [PubMed] [DOI]
    31. Jump up to: 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 Zhang WG et al.: Construction of an integral formula of biological age for a healthy Chinese population using principle component analysis. J Nutr Health Aging 2014. (PMID 24522464) [PubMed] [DOI]
    32. Jump up to: 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 Jee H et al.: Development and application of biological age prediction models with physical fitness and physiological components in Korean adults. Gerontology 2012. (PMID 22433233) [PubMed] [DOI]
    33. Jump up to: 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 33.9 Hochschild R: Improving the precision of biological age determinations. Part 2: Automatic human tests, age norms and variability. Exp Gerontol 1989. (PMID 2583248) [PubMed] [DOI]
    34. Jump up to: 34.0 34.1 Zhang WG et al.: Peripheral Blood Leukocyte Telomere Length Is Associated with Age but Not Renal Function: A Cross-Sectional Follow-Up Study. J Nutr Health Aging 2018. (PMID 29380856) [PubMed] [DOI]
    35. Li Z et al.: Progress in biological age research. Front Public Health 2023. (PMID 37124811) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    36. Jylhävä J et al.: Biological Age Predictors. EBioMedicine 2017. (PMID 28396265) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    37. Erema VV et al.: Biological Age Predictors: The Status Quo and Future Trends. Int J Mol Sci 2022. (PMID 36499430) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    38. Lohman T et al.: Predictors of Biological Age: The Implications for Wellness and Aging Research. Gerontol Geriatr Med 2021. (PMID 34595331) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]
    39. Ashiqur Rahman S et al.: Deep learning for biological age estimation. Brief Bioinform 2021. (PMID 32363395) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text]