ArticleGeroScience2025
An explainable machine learning estimated biological age based on morphological parameters of the spine.
Article in GeroScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances and challenges in AI-assisted MRI for lumbar disc degeneration detection and classification.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately estimating biological age is beneficial for measuring aging and predicting risk. It is widely accepted that the prevalence of spine compression increases significantly with age. However, biological age based on vertebral morphological data is rarely reported. In this study, a total of 2,364 participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were enrolled, and morphological parameters of the spine were collected from lateral radiographs scanned by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. The biological age of the spine, called SpineAge, was calculated with the parameters by machine learning models. The SHapley Additive exPlanation was used for better interpreting each parameter's contribution. Besides, an Accelerated Aging Index (AAI) was defined as SpineAge minus chronological age and was used to quantify the accelerating aging degree of the spine. The results indicated that the SpineAge performed better than chronological age did in predicting 2-year and 5-year all-cause mortality. After adjusting all covariates, there was a significant association between AAI and all-cause mortality risk. Specifically, each 1-year increase in AAI was associated with a 25.9% increase in all-cause mortality risk (Hazards ratio, 1.259; 95% CI, 1.087-1.457; P < 0.001). Considering the first quartile of AAI as a reference, the mortality risks for the second, third, and fourth quartiles were 2.389 (95% CI, 1.064-5.364; P = 0.035), 5.911 (95% CI, 2.241-15.590; P < 0.001) and 22.925 (95% CI, 4.744-110.769; P < 0.001) times higher, respectively. Our study developed a novel and highly applicable biological-age predictor for predicting individualized long-term prognosis and facilitating personalized care.
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.