ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2025
The incremental predictive value of biological aging indicators for cognitive impairment in older adults: a longitudinal analysis on the Mr. OS & Ms. OS cohort.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction: The incremental predictive value of biological aging indicators for cognitive impairment in older adults: a longitudinal analysis on the Mr. OS & Ms. OS cohort.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- Utility of biological aging markers for mortality risk stratification in community-dwelling older adults: insights from the Mr. OS and Ms. OS (Hong Kong) cohort.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiological aging (BA) markers such as frailty and telomere length are closely linked to cognitive impairment (CI). However, the incremental value of biochemical marker-enriched frailty index (FI) and telomere length for predicting CI remains underexplored. We aimed to assess the incremental value of BA markers beyond conventional cognitive tests for CI risk stratification.
methodsA total of 1674 community-dwelling older adults without baseline CI were obtained from the Mr. OS & Ms. OS (Hong Kong) cohort. Baseline BA measures included frailty phenotype, three FI versions (without/with 2 or 4 serum biochemical markers: creatinine, homocysteine, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D), and leukocyte telomere length. CI was assessed by concurrently using the MMSE and CSI-D tests at the 7-year follow-up. Penalized logistic regression was used to evaluate the incremental value of BA indicators beyond cognitive tests for CI prediction, with the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) as the primary performance metric.
resultsThe mean age of the study sample was 70.7 years (SD: 4.2), and 44.1% were females. The 7-year incidence of CI was 17.0% (285/1674). Compared to baseline CSI-D score, the FI incorporating four biochemical markers demonstrated significant incremental value for CI prediction (AUPRC improvement: 0.037, P < 0.001), while other frailty indicators (frailty phenotype and other two FI versions) showed no significant added value. Telomere length provided additional predictive value across all frailty-related models (AUPRC improvements: 0.009–0.078, all P < 0.001) except the FI without biochemical markers. The optimal prediction model, which considered the FI with four biochemical markers and telomere length, achieved an AUPRC (SD) of 0.568 ± 0.092 and an AUROC (SD) of 0.826 ± 0.037.
conclusionsFrailty index with four biochemical markers and telomere length showed moderate incremental value over cognitive tests for CI prediction in older adults. The findings highlight the importance of multisystem biological aging assessment in CI risk stratification. Further validation is warranted in large cohorts.
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.