Biological Age: Difference between revisions
(→Todo) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Todo == | == Todo == | ||
* {{pmid text|28546743}} | |||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
Revision as of 02:15, 30 January 2024
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Todo
- 2017, Common methods of biological age estimation [1]
See Also
- Epigenetic Clocks
- Wikipedia - Biomarkers of aging
References
- ↑ Jia L et al.: Common methods of biological age estimation. Clin Interv Aging 2017. (PMID 28546743) [PubMed] [DOI] [Full text] At present, no single indicator could be used as a golden index to estimate aging process. The biological age (BA), which combines several important biomarkers with mathematical modeling, has been proposed for >50 years as an aging estimation method to replace chronological age (CA). The common methods used for BA estimation include the multiple linear regression (MLR), the principal component analysis (PCA), the Hochschild's method, and the Klemera and Doubal's method (KDM). The fundamental differences in these four methods are the roles of CA and the selection criteria of aging biomarkers. In MLR and PCA, CA is treated as the selection criterion and an independent index. The Hochschild's method and KDM share a similar concept, making CA an independent variable. Previous studies have either simply constructed the BA model by one or compared the four methods together. However, reviews have yet to illustrate and compare the four methods systematically. Since the BA model is a potential estimation of aging for clinical use, such as predicting onset and prognosis of diseases, improving the elderly's living qualities, and realizing successful aging, here we summarize previous BA studies, illustrate the basic statistical steps, and thoroughly discuss the comparisons among the four common BA estimation methods.