ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2021
Feature Selection Algorithms Enhance the Accuracy of Frailty Indexes as Measures of Biological Age.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alzheimer's Disease DNA Methylation Index (AD-DMI) and its Association with Late-Life Cognitive Function.NPJ dementia · 2026Article
- Beyond hallmarks of aging - biological age and emergence of aging networks.Aging pathobiology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Clinical biomarker-based biological age predicts deaths in Brazilian adults: the ELSA-Brasil study.GeroScience · 2024Article
- All-Subset Analysis Improves the Predictive Accuracy of Biological Age for All-Cause Mortality in Chinese and U.S. Populations.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022Article
- Frailty and Biological Age.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological age captures some of the variance in life expectancy for which chronological age is not accountable, and it quantifies the heterogeneity in the presentation of the aging phenotype in various individuals. Among the many quantitative measures of biological age, the mathematically uncomplicated frailty/deficit index is simply the proportion of the total health deficits in various health items surveyed in different individuals. We used 3 different statistical methods that are popular in machine learning to select 17-28 health items that together are highly predictive of survival/mortality, from independent study cohorts. From the selected sets, we calculated frailty indexes and Klemera-Doubal's biological age estimates, and then compared their mortality prediction performance using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Our results indicate that the frailty index outperforms age and Klemera-Doubal's biological age estimates, especially among the oldest old who are most prone to biological aging-caused mortality. We also showed that a DNA methylation index, which was generated by applying the frailty/deficit index calculation method to 38 CpG sites that were selected using the same machine learning algorithms, can predict mortality even better than the best performing frailty index constructed from health, function, and blood chemistry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.