ArticleEBioMedicine2026
Chronological versus physiological age for 10-year survival estimation: a real-world healthsystem-wide cohort analysis.
Article in EBioMedicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenefits from clinical guidelines often only exceed harms after 10 years (payoff time). Based on population norms, guidelines are often discontinued at 75 years of age, but survival likely differs for those with complex chronic disease. We compare estimates based on age alone versus the physiologically based Veterans Ageing Cohort Study-Charlson Comorbidity Index (VACS-CCI) among all patients in care, and among patients with diabetes or HIV.
methodsEstimates for patients in care within the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with a clinic visit in 2007-17 (followed thru 2021) were compared using C-statistics, Brier Scores, and calibration curves. "Physiological age" was defined as the chronological age at which median VACS-CCI matched US population survival estimates. Among those with 10-year follow-up, we compared percent correctly classified using age ≥75 years vs. VACS-CCI score of ≥42.
findingsAmong 6.6 million (51.4% ≥ 65 years; 25.2% with diabetes; 0.5% with HIV) VACS-CCI improved discrimination over age (Overall C-statistic: 0.81 vs. 0.74; Brier Score 0.239 vs. 0.262). Among 65-year-old males-females, "physiological age" exceeded chronological age by 4.6-3.1 years overall; 8.6-7.8 years for diabetes; and 13.5-11.6 years for HIV. Compared to age ≥75 years, VACS-CCI improved correct classification of survival for 1 in 13.3 overall; 1 in 7.8 with diabetes; and 1 in 6.4 with HIV.
interpretationCompared to chronological age alone, VACS-CCI offers an improved method to identify those likely to reach minimum payoff time, especially for those with complex chronic diseases. Use of clinical data to assess "physiological age" could improve healthcare value.
fundingThis work was supported by National Institutes of Health NIAAA: P01 AA029545, U24 AA020794 and the Emory Center for AIDS Research (P30AI050409).
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.