ArticleGeroScience2026
MicroBayesAge: a maximum likelihood approach to predict epigenetic age using microarray data.
Article in GeroScience, 2026. 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
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
Certain epigenetic modifications, such as the methylation of CpG sites, can serve as biomarkers for chronological age. Previously, we introduced the BayesAge frameworks for accurate age prediction through the use of locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) to capture the nonlinear relationship between methylation or gene expression and age, and maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) for bulk bisulfite and RNA sequencing data. Here, we introduce MicroBayesAge, a maximum likelihood framework for age prediction using DNA microarray data that provides less biased age predictions compared to commonly used linear methods. Furthermore, MicroBayesAge enhances prediction accuracy relative to previous versions of BayesAge by subdividing input data into age-specific cohorts and employing a new two-stage process for training and testing. Additionally, we explored the performance of our model for sex-specific age prediction which revealed slight improvements in accuracy for male patients, while no changes were observed for female patients.
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.