ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Uncertainty quantification in epigenetic clocks via conformalized quantile regression.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA methylation (DNAm) is a chemical modification of DNA that can be influenced by various factors, including age, the environment, and lifestyle. An epigenetic clock is a predictive tool that measures biological age based on DNAm levels. It can provide insights into an individual's biological age, which may differ from their chronological age. This difference, known as the epigenetic age acceleration, may reflect health status and the risk for age-related diseases. Moreover, epigenetic clocks are used in studies of aging to assess the effectiveness of anti-aging interventions and to understand the underlying mechanisms of aging and disease. Various epigenetic clocks have been developed using samples from different populations, tissues, and cell types, typically by training high-dimensional linear regression models with an elastic net penalty. While these models can predict mean biological age based on DNAm with high precision, there is a lack of uncertainty quantification which is important for interpreting the precision of age estimations and for clinical decision-making. To understand the distribution of a biological age clock beyond its mean, we propose a general pipeline for training epigenetic clocks, based on an integration of high-dimensional quantile regression and conformal prediction, to effectively reveal population heterogeneity and construct prediction intervals. Our approach produces adaptive prediction intervals not only achieving nominal coverage but also accounting for the inherent variability across individuals. By using the data collected from 728 blood samples in 11 DNAm datasets from children, we find that our quantile regression-based prediction intervals are narrower than those derived from conventional mean regression-based epigenetic clocks. This observation demonstrates an improved statistical efficiency over the existing pipeline for training epigenetic clocks. In addition, the resulting intervals have a synchronized varying pattern to age acceleration, effectively revealing cellular evolutionary heterogeneity in age patterns in different developmental stages during individual childhoods and adolescent cohort. Our findings suggest that conformalized high-dimensional quantile regression can produce valid prediction intervals and uncover underlying population heterogeneity. Although our methodology focuses on the distribution of measures of biological aging in children, it is applicable to a broader range of age groups to improve understanding of epigenetic age beyond the mean. This inference-based toolbox could provide valuable insights for future applications of epigenetic interventions for age-related diseases.
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.