ArticlePloS one2025
Prediction of future aging-related slow gait and its determinants with deep learning and logistic regression.
Article in PloS one, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of accelerated aging and its biomarkers can lead to more timely therapeutic interventions and decision-making. Therefore, we sought to predict aging-related slow gait, a known predictor of accelerated aging, and its determinants.
methodsWe applied a deep learning neural network (NN) and compared it to conventional logistic regression (LR) analysis. We incorporated 1,363 participants from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging to predict current and future slow gait at 6-year and 10-year follow-up using two clinically-relevant cut-points.
resultsOur NN achieved a maximum sensitivity (specificity) of 81.2% (87.9%), for a 10-year prediction with 0.8 m/s cut-point. We demonstrated the necessity of class balancing and found the NN to perform comparably to or in some cases, better than, LR which achieved a maximum sensitivity and specificity of 84.5% and 86.3%, respectively. Sobol index analysis identified the strongest determinants to be age, BMI, sleep, and grip strength.
conclusionsThe novel use of a NN for this purpose, and successful benchmarking against conventional techniques, justifies further exploration and expansion of this model.
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.