ArticleResearch square2026
Seven routine blood markers predict five-year mortality in older Indians: a risk score from the LASI-DAD cohort.
Article in Research square, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Validated, blood-based tools to estimate short-to-medium-term mortality in older adults are derived almost entirely from European-ancestry or East Asian populations and transport poorly to South Asians, who present a distinct cardiometabolic and body-composition phenotype. No mortality risk score using routine blood markers exists for community-dwelling older Indians. Methods: We used Wave-1 data from the Longitudinal Aging Study in India - Diagnostic Assessment of Dementia (LASI-DAD), a nationally representative cohort of adults aged ≥ 60 years with venous biomarker phenotyping. Vital status was ascertained through an End-of-Life informant module to Wave 2. From the available venous panel, we pre-selected seven markers on biological grounds - N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), serum albumin, cystatin C, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) - and fitted a Cox proportional-hazards model with age and sex. Discrimination (Harrell's C), bootstrap optimism correction, calibration at three years, and risk-tertile stratification were assessed; decision-curve analysis quantified clinical utility. Results: Among 2144 participants (540 deaths over a median 4.4 years of survivor follow-up; 25% mortality), the seven-marker score plus age and sex achieved an apparent C of 0.74 (optimism-corrected 0.74), versus 0.68 for age and sex alone (Δ ≈ 0.06); the blood panel alone reached C 0.72. NT-proBNP (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD 1.31), HbA1c (1.24) and albumin (0.81) carried most of the signal, with smaller contributions from cystatin C, ALT, NLR and hs-CRP. Calibration was excellent at three years. Participants in the highest score tertile had 8.7-fold the mortality hazard of the lowest (95% CI 6.5-11.6; log-rank p < 0.001), with three-year mortality of 34% versus 6%. The score provided positive net benefit across clinically relevant decision thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, all associations persisted after adjustment for comorbidity, cognition and function, and the panel out-performed a clinical-plus-cognitive model. Conclusions: A seven-marker panel obtainable from a single venous sample, combined with age and sex, stratifies five-year mortality in older Indians with good discrimination and calibration. Pending external validation, it offers a clinically translatable, population-specific tool for prognostic risk stratification in a large and under-studied population. Trial registration: Not applicable (observational cohort analysis).
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.