Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28977464›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2018

Measures of Biologic Age in a Community Sample Predict Mortality and Age-Related Disease: The Framingham Offspring Study.

Joanne M Murabito, Qiang Zhao, Martin G Larson, Jian Rong, Honghuang Lin, Emelia J Benjamin, Daniel Levy, Kathryn L Lunetta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Validation of biomarkers of aging.Nature medicine · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Joanne M MurabitoFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.
Qiang ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Martin G LarsonFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.
Jian RongDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts.
Honghuang LinFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.
Emelia J BenjaminFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.
Daniel LevyFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.
Kathryn L LunettaFramingham Heart Study, Massachusetts.

Funding

THE FRAMINGHAM HEART STUDYN01HC25195 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI RAMACHANDRAN, VASAN S · 2007 to 2014
$83.8M
Framingham: Inflammation, Genes &Cardiovascular DiseaseR01HL076784 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI BENJAMIN, EMELIA J. · 2004 to 2008
$3.9M
Aging and Inflammation: Longitudinal Markers and Genetics in the Framingham StudyR01AG028321 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI BENJAMIN, EMELIA J. · 2006 to 2010
$1.8M
Novel multi-omics approach to the biology of healthy aging: Framingham StudyR56AG029451 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI LUNETTA, KATHRYN L, MURABITO, JOANNE M · 2015 to 2015
$474k
NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201500001INHLBI NIH HHS N01HC25195NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL076784NIA NIH HHS R01 AG028321NIA NIH HHS R56 AG029451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We tested the association of biologic age (BA) measures constructed from different types of biomarkers with mortality and disease in a community-based sample. Methods: In Framingham Offspring participants at Exams 7 (1998-2001, mean age 62 ± 10) and 8 (2005-2008, mean age 67 ± 9), we used the Klemera-Doubal method to estimate clinical BA and inflammatory BA and computed the difference (∆age) between BA and CA. Clinical ∆age was computed at Exam 2 (1979-1983, mean age 45 ± 10). At Exam 8, we computed measures of intrinsic and extrinsic epigenetic age. Participants were followed through 2014 for outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models tested the association of each BA estimate with each outcome adjusting for covariates. Results: Sample sizes ranged from 2532 to 3417 participants. In multivariable models, each 1-year increase in clinical ∆age at Exam 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04-1.06, p < 2 × 10-16) and clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age at Exam 7 significantly increased the hazards of mortality and incident cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.01-1.05, p < 2 × 10-7), whereas inflammatory ∆age increased the hazards of cancer (HR = 1.01, p < .05). At Exam 8, increased clinical ∆age, inflammatory ∆age, and extrinsic epigenetic age all significantly increased the hazard of mortality (HR = 1.03-1.05, all p < .05); clinical ∆age and inflammatory ∆age increased cardiovascular disease risk (HR = 1.04-1.05, all p < .01); and clinical ∆age increased cancer risk (HR = 1.03, p < .01) when all three BA measures were included in the model. Intrinsic epigenetic age was not significantly associated with any outcome. Conclusions: Our findings suggest BA measures may be complementary in predicting risk for mortality and age-related disease.

Indexed as

AgingAgedAge FactorsBiomarkersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityMortalityPredictive Value of TestsProportional Hazards ModelsRisk FactorsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID28977464
PMCPMC5946832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.