Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40263505›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Explainable machine learning framework for biomarker discovery by combining biological age and frailty prediction.

Xiheng Wang, Jie Ji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors.

Xiheng WangUniveristy of Michigan - Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. wang1989@sjtu.edu.cn.
Jie JiNetwork and Information Centre, Shantou University, Shantou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological age (BA) and frailty represent two distinct health measures that offer valuable insights into the aging process. Comparing and analyzing blood-based biomarkers from the machine learning (ML) predictors of BA and frailty helps deepen our understanding of aging. This study aimed to develop a novel framework to identify biomarkers of aging by combining BA and frailty ML predictors with eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques. We utilized data from middle-aged and older Chinese adults (≥ 45 years) in the 2011/2012 wave (n = 9702) and the 2015/2016 wave (n = 9455, as test set validation) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Sixteen blood-based biomarkers were used to predict BA and frailty. Four tree-based ML algorithms were employed in the training and validation, and performance metrics were compared to select the best models. Then, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was conducted on the selected models. CatBoost performed the best in the BA predictor, and Gradient Boosting performed the best in the frailty predictor. Traditional ML feature importance identified cystatin C and glycated hemoglobin as the major contributors for their respective models. However, subsequent SHAP analysis demonstrated that only cystatin C was the primary contributor in both models. The proposed framework can easily incorporate additional biomarkers, providing a scalable and comprehensive toolset that offers a quantitative understanding of biomarkers of aging.

Indexed as

AgingBiomarkersFrailtyMachine LearningAgedAged, 80 and overChinaCystatin CFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkersCystatin CBiological ageBiomarker discoveryeXplainable artificial intelligenceFrailtyMachine learningPredictionSHAP

Identifiers

PMID40263505
PMCPMC12015418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.