Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33693684›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2021

A Biomarker-based Biological Age in UK Biobank: Composition and Prediction of Mortality and Hospital Admissions.

Mei Sum Chan, Matthew Arnold, Alison Offer, Imen Hammami, Marion Mafham, Jane Armitage, Rafael Perera, Sarah Parish

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Mei Sum ChanNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0230-0571
Matthew ArnoldNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6339-1115
Alison OfferNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Imen HammamiNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Marion MafhamNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Jane ArmitageNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8691-9226
Rafael PereraNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.
Sarah ParishNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3532-0832

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Medical Research Council MC_U137686853Medical Research Council MC_UU_00017/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_00017/5Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronological age is the strongest risk factor for most chronic diseases. Developing a biomarker-based age and understanding its most important contributing biomarkers may shed light on the effects of age on later-life health and inform opportunities for disease prevention.

methodsA subpopulation of 141 254 individuals healthy at baseline were studied, from among 480 019 UK Biobank participants aged 40-70 recruited in 2006-2010, and followed up for 6-12 years via linked death and secondary care records. Principal components of 72 biomarkers measured at baseline were characterized and used to construct sex-specific composite biomarker ages using the Klemera Doubal method, which derived a weighted sum of biomarker principal components based on their linear associations with chronological age. Biomarker importance in the biomarker ages was assessed by the proportion of the variation in the biomarker ages that each explained. The proportions of the overall biomarker and chronological age effects on mortality and age-related hospital admissions explained by the biomarker ages were compared using likelihoods in Cox proportional hazard models.

resultsReduced lung function, kidney function, reaction time, insulin-like growth factor 1, hand grip strength, and higher blood pressure were key contributors to the derived biomarker age in both men and women. The biomarker ages accounted for >65% and >84% of the apparent effect of age on mortality and hospital admissions for the healthy and whole populations, respectively, and significantly improved prediction of mortality (p < .001) and hospital admissions (p < 1 × 10-10) over chronological age alone.

conclusionsThis study suggests that a broader, multisystem approach to research and prevention of diseases of aging warrants consideration.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiological Specimen BanksBiomarkersFemaleHand StrengthHospitalizationHumansHypertensionKidney Function TestsMaleMiddle AgedMortalityReaction TimeRespiratory Function TestsSomatomedinsBiomarkersSomatomedinsEpidemiologyOutcomesPreventative health careRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID33693684
PMCPMC8202154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.