ArticleScientific reports2025
Explainable machine learning framework for biomarker discovery by combining biological age and frailty prediction.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on, "Long-term outcome of tailored antithrombotic therapy based on platelet function testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 5-year retrospective cohort study".Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Comparison of classic statistical methods and machine learning approaches to classify readiness.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Epigenetics in development, disease, and therapy: from mechanisms to clinical interventions.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Review
- Latent pain class identification, longitudinal transitions, and machine learning prediction of incident low back pain in middle-aged and older Chinese adults.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Associations Between Biomarkers and Frailty in Older Adults: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.