ArticleGeroScience2026
Examination of DNAm PhenoAge as an epigenetic biomarker for perioperative risk in adult spinal deformity surgeries.
Article in GeroScience, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epigenetic changes, such as DNA methylation (DNAm), offer a measure of biological age distinct from chronological age. DNAm PhenoAge is one such biomarker that is more strongly related to morbidity, mortality, and physical function than chronological age. More accurate risk stratification methods are needed for ASD surgeries, where complications remain difficult to predict with an increasingly aged population. A multicenter ASD registry was queried. DNAm PhenoAge was calculated as per Levine et al. (6). Multivariable logistic regression examined the associations of DNAm PhenoAge and chronological age with perioperative adverse events (AE). The relative improvements in model discrimination, fit, and classification performance were compared. Adjusted odds ratios compared the risk of 55 versus 75 years for each age metric. Laboratory data were available for 200 patients. Mean DNAm PhenoAge was lower than chronological (DNAm PhenoAge, 53.7 ± 18.1; chronological, 61.1 ± 15.4; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 6.3-8.5). DNAm PhenoAge models demonstrated numerically higher discrimination for all outcomes examined (AUC range, 0.701-0.823 vs. 0.671-0.767), although no DeLong comparisons were statistically significant (all p > 0.05). Model fit consistently favored DNAm PhenoAge (ΔAIC, 4.41-7.08), with NRI ranging from 0.198 to 0.500. For most adverse events, DNAm PhenoAge demonstrated adjusted odds ratios that were comparable to or greater than those observed for chronological age. In this exploratory study, DNAm PhenoAge demonstrated associations with several postoperative adverse events. Although differences in discrimination were not statistically significant, improvements were consistently observed across multiple complementary measures of model performance. The generally consistent direction of improved model performance suggests that DNAm PhenoAge warrants further study as a candidate biomarker for perioperative risk stratification (level of evidence, 3).
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.