ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2026
Assessing differences in epigenetic aging markers between sexual or gender minority and straight cisgender adults using the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults cohort.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Marginalized individuals like sexual and gender minority (SGM) people may experience accelerated biologic aging due to stigma and structural discrimination. We used Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) cohort data to assess this hypothesis. We first identified SGM individuals using Year 35 sexual orientation and gender identity data, then compared Year 15 (2000-01) or 20 (Y20, 2005-06) epigenetic aging biomarkers between SGM and straight cisgender participants using linear models adjusting for socio-demographics and behavior. Epigenetic markers included intrinsic epigenetic aging acceleration (IEAA), extrinsic EAA, PhenoAge acceleration, and GrimAge acceleration. Our sample (n = 817) was 18.4% SGM. SGM and straight cisgender participants had similar age, sex, and race distributions. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses showed no significant differences between groups except for SGM adults having higher Y20 IEAA in adjusted models compared to straight cisgender adults. Longitudinal models also showed higher rate of change in IEAA in SGM adults. Given the potential of selection bias driving significant results, we used simulations to explore which scenarios can produce observed findings. Our simulations suggest that the observed Y20 IEAA difference is unlikely if there was indeed no disparity. It is also possible that the estimate was an underestimate of the true disparity due to selection from differential survival between the two groups. Our analysis showed no strong evidence of accelerated aging in SGM. Future studies to address limitations are needed.
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.