ArticleGeroScience2024
Clinical biomarker-based biological age predicts deaths in Brazilian adults: the ELSA-Brasil study.
Article in GeroScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Early-life determinants of cardiometabolic outcomes and accelerated biological ageing in Colombia.Aging · 2026Article
- Biological age acceleration, longitudinal change and mortality risk in the Dutch Lifelines cohort.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Development and validation of deep learning- and ensemble learning-based biological ages in the NHANES study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological age is a construct that seeks to evaluate the biological wear and tear process of the organism that cannot be observed by chronological age. We estimate individuals' biological age based on biomarkers from multiple systems and validate it through its association with mortality from natural causes. Biological age was estimated in 12,109 participants (6621 women and 5488 men) from the first visit of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) who had valid data for the biomarkers used in the analyses. Biological age was estimated using the Klemera and Doubal method. The difference between chronological age and biological age (Δage) was computed. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by sex were used to assess whether Δage was associated with mortality risk after a median follow-up of 9.1 years. The accuracy of the models was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). Δage had equal mean for men and women, with greater variability for men. Cox models showed that every 1-year increase in Δage was associated with increased mortality in men (HR (95% CI) 1.21; 1.17-1.25) and women (HR (95% CI) 1.24; 1.15-1.34), independently of chronological age. Results of the AUC demonstrated that the predictive power of models that only included chronological age (AUC chronological age = 0.7396) or Δage (AUC Δage = 0.6842) was lower than those that included both, chronological age and Δage (AUC chronological age + Δage = 0.802), in men. This difference was not observed in women. We demonstrate that biological age is strongly related to mortality in both genders and is a valid predictor of death in Brazilian adults, especially among men.
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.