ArticlePloS one2025
Prediction of biological age using machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Artificial intelligence approaches in biological age prediction: current status and challenges.British journal of biomedical science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to Taiwan's rapidly aging population and the rising demand for personalized health care, accurately assessing individual physiological aging has become an essential area of study. This research utilizes health examination data to propose a machine learning-based biological age prediction model that quantifies physiological age through residual life estimation. The model leverages LightGBM, which shows an 11.40% improvement in predictive performance (R-squared) compared to the XGBoost model. In the experiments, the use of MICE imputation for missing data significantly enhanced prediction accuracy, resulting in a 23.35% improvement in predictive performance. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) estimator survival analysis revealed that the model effectively differentiates between groups with varying health levels, underscoring the validity of biological age as a health status indicator. Additionally, the model identified the top ten biomarkers most influential in aging for both men and women, with a 69.23% overlap with Taiwan's leading causes of death and previously identified top health-impact factors, further validating its practical relevance. Through multidimensional health recommendations based on SHAP and PCC interpretations, if the health recommendations provided by the model are implemented, 64.58% of individuals could potentially extend their life expectancy. This study provides new methodological support and data backing for precision health interventions and life extension.
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.