Selection of an optimal set of biomarkers and comparative analyses of biological age estimation models in Korean females

Clarifying the biological and statistical assumptions of cross-sectional biological age predictors: an elaborate illustration using synthetic and real data

BACKGROUND

There is divergence in the rate at which people age. The concept of biological age is postulated to capture this variability, and hence to better represent an individual's true global physiological state than chronological age. Biological age predictors are often generated based on cross-sectional data, using biochemical or molecular markers as predictor variables. It is assumed that the difference between chronological and predicted biological age is informative of one's chronological age-independent aging divergence ∆.

METHODS

We investigated the statistical assumptions underlying the most popular cross-sectional biological age predictors, based on multiple linear regression, the Klemera-Doubal method or principal component analysis. We used synthetic and real data to illustrate the consequences if this assumption does not hold.

RESULTS

The most popular cross-sectional biological age predictors all use the same strong underlying assumption, namely that a candidate marker of aging's association with chronological age is directly informative of its association with the aging rate ∆. We called this the identical-association assumption and proved that it is untestable in a cross-sectional setting. If this assumption does not hold, weights assigned to candidate markers of aging are uninformative, and no more signal may be captured than if markers would have been assigned weights at random.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-sectional methods for predicting biological age commonly use the untestable identical-association assumption, which previous literature in the field had never explicitly acknowledged. These methods have inherent limitations and may provide uninformative results, highlighting the importance of researchers exercising caution in the development and interpretation of cross-sectional biological age predictors.

Living in poverty and accelerated biological aging: evidence from population-representative sample of U.S. adults

BACKGROUND

Biological aging reflects a decline in the functions and integrity of the human body that is closely related to chronological aging. A variety of biomarkers have been found to predict biological age. Biological age higher than chronological age (biological age acceleration) indicates an accelerated state of biological aging and a higher risk of premature morbidity and mortality. This study investigated how socioeconomic disadvantages influence biological aging.

METHODS

The data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) IV, including 10 nationally representative cross-sectional surveys between 1999-2018, were utilized. The analytic sample consisted of N = 48,348 individuals (20-84 years). We used a total of 11 biomarkers for estimating the biological age. Our main outcome was biological age acceleration, indexed by PhenoAge acceleration (PAA) and Klemera-Doubal biological age acceleration (KDM-A). Poverty was measured as a ratio of family income to the poverty thresholds defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, adjusted annually for inflation and family size (5 categories). The PAA and KDM-A were regressed on poverty levels, age, their interaction, education, sex, race, and a data collection wave. Sample weights were used to make the estimates representative of the U.S. adult population.

RESULTS

The results showed that higher poverty was associated with accelerated biological aging (PAA: unstandardized coefficient B = 1.38 p <.001, KDM: B = 0.96, p = .026 when comparing the highest and the lowest poverty level categories), above and beyond other covariates. The association between PAA and KDM-A and age was U-shaped. Importantly, there was an interaction between poverty levels and age (p <.001), as the effect of poverty was most pronounced in middle-aged categories while it was modest in younger and elderly groups.

CONCLUSION

In a nationally representative US adult population, we found that higher poverty was positively associated with the acceleration of biological age, particularly among middle-aged persons.

Biomarkers selection and mathematical modeling in biological age estimation

Biological age (BA) is important for clinical monitoring and preventing aging-related disorders and disabilities. Clinical and/or cellular biomarkers are measured and integrated in years using mathematical models to display an individual's BA. To date, there is not yet a single or set of biomarker(s) and technique(s) that is validated as providing the BA that reflects the best real aging status of individuals. Herein, a comprehensive overview of aging biomarkers is provided and the potential of genetic variations as proxy indicators of the aging state is highlighted. A comprehensive overview of BA estimation methods is also provided as well as a discussion of their performances, advantages, limitations, and potential approaches to overcome these limitations.

Modeling biological age using blood biomarkers and physical measurements in Chinese adults

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to: 1) assess the associations of biological age acceleration based on Klemera and Doubal's method (KDM-AA) with long-term risk of all-cause mortality; and 2) compare the association of KDM-AA with all-cause mortality among participants potentially at different stages of the cardiovascular disease (CVD) continuum.

METHODS

The present study was based on a subpopulation of the China Kadoorie Biobank, with baseline survey during 2004-08. A total of 12,377 participants free of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or cancer at baseline were included, in which 8180 participants were identified to develop major coronary event (MCE), ischemic stroke (IS), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and 4197 remained free of these cardiovascular diseases before 1 January 2014. These participants were followed up until 1 Jan 2018. KDM-AA was calculated by regressing biological age measurement, which was constructed based on baseline 16 physical and 9 biochemical markers using Klemera and Doubal's method, on chronological age. We estimated the associations of KDM-AA with the mortality risk using the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox proportional hazard models. We assessed discrimination performance by Harrell's C-index and net reclassification index (NRI).

FINDINGS

The participants who developed MCE (mean KDM-AA = 0.1 year, standard deviation [SD] = 1.6 years) or ICH/SAH (0.3 ± 1.5 years) during subsequent follow-up showed accelerated aging at baseline compared to those of IS (0.0 ± 1.2 years) and control (-0.3 ± 1.3 years) groups. The KDM-AA was positively associated with long-term risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.23), and the association was robust for participants potentially at different stages of the CVD continuum. Adding KDM-AA improved mortality prediction compared to the model only with sociodemographic and lifestyle factors in whole participants, with the Harrell's C-index increasing from 0.813 (0.807, 0.819) to 0.821 (0.815, 0.826) (NRI = 0.011; 95% CI: 0.003, 0.019).

INTERPRETATION

In this middle-aged and elderly Chinese population, the KDM-AA is a promising measurement for biological age, and can capture the difference in cardiovascular health and predict the risk of all-cause mortality over a decade.

FUNDING

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82192904, 82192901, 82192900, 81941018). The CKB baseline survey and the first re-survey were supported by a grant from the Kadoorie Charitable Foundation Hong Kong. The long-term follow-up is supported by grants from the UK Wellcome Trust (212946/Z/18/Z, 202922/Z/16/Z, 104085/Z/14/Z, 088158/Z/09/Z), grants (2016YFC0900500) from the National Key R&D Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China (81390540, 91846303), and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (2011BAI09B01).

Progress in biological age research

Biological age (BA) is a common model to evaluate the function of aging individuals as it may provide a more accurate measure of the extent of human aging than chronological age (CA). Biological age is influenced by the used biomarkers and standards in selected aging biomarkers and the statistical method to construct BA. Traditional used BA estimation approaches include multiple linear regression (MLR), principal component analysis (PCA), Klemera and Doubal's method (KDM), and, in recent years, deep learning methods. This review summarizes the markers for each organ/system used to construct biological age and published literature using methods in BA research. Future research needs to explore the new aging markers and the standard in select markers and new methods in building BA models.

Familial aggregation of the aging process: biological age measured in young adult offspring as a predictor of parental mortality

Measures of biological age (BA) integrate information across organ systems to quantify "biological aging," i.e., inter-individual differences in aging-related health decline. While longevity and lifespan aggregate in families, reflecting transmission of genes and environments across generations, little is known about intergenerational continuity of biological aging or the extent to which this continuity may be modified by environmental factors. Using data from the Jerusalem Perinatal Study (JPS), we tested if differences in offspring BA were related to mortality in their parents. We measured BA using biomarker data collected from 1473 offspring during clinical exams in 2007-2009, at age 32 ± 1.1. Parental mortality was obtained from population registry data for the years 2004-2016. We fitted parametric survival models to investigate the associations between offspring BA and parental all-cause and cause-specific mortality. We explored potential differences in these relationships by socioeconomic position (SEP) and offspring sex. Participants' BAs widely varied (SD = 6.95). Among those measured to be biologically older, parents had increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.13), diabetes mortality (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.30), and cancer mortality (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.13). The association with all-cause mortality was stronger for families with low compared with high SEP (P_interaction = 0.04) and for daughters as compared to sons (P_interaction < 0.001). Using a clinical-biomarker-based BA estimate, observable by young adulthood prior to the onset of aging-related diseases, we demonstrate intergenerational continuity of the aging process. Furthermore, variation in this familial aggregation according to household socioeconomic position (SEP) at offspring birth and between families of sons and daughters proposes that the environment alters individuals' aging trajectory set by their parents.

Biological age for chronic kidney disease patients using index model

The estimation of biological age (BA) is an important asymptomatic measure that can be used to understand the physical changes and the aging process of a living being. Factors that contribute towards profiling the human biological age can be diverse. Therefore, this study focuses on developing a BA model for patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). The procedure commences with the selection of significant biomarkers using a correlation test. Appropriate weighting is then assigned to each selected biomarker using the indexing method to produce a BA index. The BA index is matched to the age variation within the sample to acquire additional terms for the chronological age leading ultimately to the estimated BA. From a sample of 190 patients (133 trained data and 57 testing data) obtained from the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia, the intensity of the BA is found to be between three to nine years from the chronological age. Visual observations further validate the high similarities between the training and testing data sets.

A Model for Estimating Biological Age From Physiological Biomarkers of Healthy Aging: Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Individual differences in the rate of aging and susceptibility to disease are not accounted for by chronological age alone. These individual differences are better explained by biological age, which may be estimated by biomarker prediction models. In the light of the aging demographics of the global population and the increase in lifestyle-related morbidities, it is interesting to invent a new biological age model to be used for health promotion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a model that estimates biological age based on physiological biomarkers of healthy aging.

METHODS

Carefully selected physiological variables from a healthy study population of 100 women and men were used as biomarkers to establish an estimate of biological age. Principal component analysis was applied to the biomarkers and the first principal component was used to define the algorithm estimating biological age.

RESULTS

The first principal component accounted for 31% in women and 25% in men of the total variance in the biological age model combining mean arterial pressure, glycated hemoglobin, waist circumference, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, maximal oxygen consumption, adiponectin, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor. The correlation between the corrected biological age and chronological age was r=0.86 (P<.001) and r=0.81 (P<.001) for women and men, respectively, and the agreement was high and unbiased. No difference was found between mean chronological age and mean biological age, and the slope of the regression line was near 1 for both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimating biological age from these 9 biomarkers of aging can be used to assess general health compared with the healthy aging trajectory. This may be useful to evaluate health interventions and as an aid to enhance awareness of individual health risks and behavior when deviating from this trajectory.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03680768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03680768.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/19209.

All-Subset Analysis Improves the Predictive Accuracy of Biological Age for All-Cause Mortality in Chinese and U.S. Populations

BACKGROUND

Klemera-Doubal's method (KDM) is an advanced and widely applied algorithm for estimating biological age (BA), but it has no uniform paradigm for biomarker processing. This article proposed all subsets of biomarkers for estimating BAs and assessed their association with mortality to determine the most predictive subset and BA.

METHODS

Clinical biomarkers, including those from physical examinations and blood assays, were assessed in the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) 2009 wave. Those correlated with chronological age (CA) were combined to produce complete subsets, and BA was estimated by KDM from each subset of biomarkers. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to examine and compare each BA's effect size and predictive capacity for all-cause mortality. Validation analysis was performed in the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). KD-BA and Levine's BA were compared in all cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 130 918 panels of BAs were estimated from complete subsets comprising 3-17 biomarkers, whose Pearson coefficients with CA varied from 0.39 to 1. The most predictive subset consisted of 5 biomarkers, whose estimated KD-BA had the most predictive accuracy for all-cause mortality. Compared with Levine's BA, the accuracy of the best-fitting KD-BA in predicting death varied among specific populations.

CONCLUSION

All-subset analysis could effectively reduce the number of redundant biomarkers and significantly improve the accuracy of KD-BA in predicting all-cause mortality.

Diabetes mellitus correlates with increased biological age as indicated by clinical biomarkers

Chronological age (CA) is determined by time of birth, whereas biological age (BA) is based on changes on a cellular level and strongly correlates with morbidity, mortality, and longevity. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) associates with increased morbidity and mortality; thus, we hypothesized that BA would be increased and calculated it from biomarkers collected at routine clinical visits. Deidentified data was obtained from three cohorts of patients (20–80 years old)—T2D, type 1 diabetes (T1D), and prediabetes—and compared to gender- and age-matched non-diabetics. Eight clinical biomarkers that correlated with CA in people without diabetes were used to calculate BA using the Klemera and Doubal method 1 (KDM1) and multiple linear regression (MLR). The phenotypic age (PhAge) formula was used with its predetermined biomarkers. BA of people with T2D was, on average, 12.02 years higher than people without diabetes (p < 0.0001), while BA in T1D was 16.32 years higher (p < 0.0001). Results were corroborated using MLR and PhAge. The biomarkers with the strongest correlation to increased BA in T2D using KDM were A1c (R² = 0.23, p < 0.0001) and systolic blood pressure (R² = 0.21, p < 0.0001). BMI had a positive correlation to BA in non-diabetes subjects but disappeared in those with diabetes. Mortality data using the ACCORD trial was used to validate our results and showed a significant correlation between higher BA and decreased survival. In conclusion, BA is increased in people with diabetes, irrespective of pathophysiology, and to a lesser extent in prediabetes.

A Biological Age Model Designed for Health Promotion Interventions: Protocol for an Interdisciplinary Study for Model Development

BACKGROUND

Actions to improve healthy aging and delay morbidity are crucial, given the global aging population. We believe that biological age estimation can help promote the health of the general population. Biological age reflects the heterogeneity in functional status and vulnerability to disease that chronological age cannot. Thus, biological age assessment is a tool that provides an intuitively meaningful outcome for the general population, and as such, facilitates our understanding of the extent to which lifestyle can increase health span.

OBJECTIVE

This interdisciplinary study intends to develop a biological age model and explore its usefulness.

METHODS

The model development comprised three consecutive phases: (1) conducting a cross-sectional study to gather candidate biomarkers from 100 individuals representing normal healthy aging people (the derivation cohort); (2) estimating the biological age using principal component analysis; and (3) testing the clinical use of the model in a validation cohort of overweight adults attending a lifestyle intervention course.

RESULTS

We completed the data collection and analysis of the cross-sectional study, and the initial results of the principal component analysis are ready. Interpretation and refinement of the model is ongoing. Recruitment to the validation cohort is forthcoming. We expect the results to be published by December 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect the biological age model to be a useful indicator of disease risk and metabolic risk, and further research should focus on validating the model on a larger scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03680768, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03680768 (Phase 1 study); NCT04279366 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04279366 (Phase 3 study).

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/19209.

Development and Validation of 2 Composite Aging Measures Using Routine Clinical Biomarkers in the Chinese Population: Analyses From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to: (i) develop 2 composite aging measures in the Chinese population using 2 recent advanced algorithms (the Klemera and Doubal method and Mahalanobis distance); and (ii) validate the 2 measures by examining their associations with mortality and disease counts.

METHODS

Based on data from the China Nutrition and Health Survey (CHNS) 2009 wave (N = 8119, aged 20-79 years, 53.5% women), a nationwide prospective cohort study of the Chinese population, we developed Klemera and Doubal method-biological age (KDM-BA) and physiological dysregulation (PD, derived from Mahalanobis distance) using 12 biomarkers. For the validation analysis, we used Cox proportional hazard regression models (for mortality) and linear, Poisson, and logistic regression models (for disease counts) to examine the associations. We replicated the validation analysis in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS, N = 9304, aged 45-99 years, 53.4% women).

RESULTS

Both aging measures were predictive of mortality after accounting for age and gender (KDM-BA, per 1-year, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08, 1.19; PD, per 1-SD, HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.33, 1.69). With few exceptions, these mortality predictions were robust across stratifications by age, gender, education, and health behaviors. The 2 aging measures were associated with disease counts both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. These results were generally replicable in CHARLS although 4 biomarkers were not available.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed and validated 2 composite aging measures-KDM-BA and PD, which have great potentials for applications in early identifications and preventions of aging and aging-related diseases in China.

Selection of a set of biomarkers and comparisons of biological age estimation models for Korean men

Biological age (BA) represents the rate of the senescence with a set of biomarkers. The BA prediction models have not been compared to obtain an optimal BA prediction model with BA biomarkers for Korean men. The study aims to obtain a set of BA biomarkers and compare three of the reported statistical approaches for an optimal BA prediction model. The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys data of 2009 to 2011 were used to select six BA biomarkers from 940 healthy subjects aged between 30 to 80 years. The multiple linear regression (MLR), principal component analysis (PCA), and Klemera and Doubal methods (KDM) were used to obtain three BA prediction models. Correlation coefficients (r) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and regression slopes were assessed. One of the Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, mobility, was compared for feasibility test of each BA models. KDM showed greatest correlation (r=0.88 [P<0.05]) with smallest 95% CI and regression slope (1.00). PCA also showed strong correlation (r=0.79 [P<0.05]) with small 95% CI and regression slope (0.94). MLR (r=0.68 [P<0.05]) showed over and underestimated BA results at the end of the age spectrum. Estimations of BA were most reliable with KDM. The PCA and MLR approaches were comparatively simple to devise for Korean men.

The many ages of man: diverse approaches to assessing ageing-related biological and psychological measures and their relationship to chronological age

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronological age is a crude measure and may not be the best indicator of the ageing process. Establishing valid and reliable biomarkers to understand the true effect of ageing is of great interest. We provide an overview of biological and psychological characteristics that change with age and can potentially serve as markers of the ageing process, and discuss if an integration of these characteristics may more accurately measure the true age of a person. We also describe the clinicopathological continuum of these ageing-related changes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ageing-related changes in the biological and psychological systems of the body have been studied to varying degrees and with differing emphases. Despite the development of ageing indices, there is no single indicator that can holistically estimate the ageing process. Differential ageing of bodily systems remains poorly understood, and valid methods have not been developed for composite markers of biological and psychological processes.

SUMMARY

The ageing process is complex and heterogeneous. Incorporating biological and psychological measures may improve accuracy in reflecting an individual's 'true age,' and elucidate why some people age successfully, whereas others show ageing-related decline and disease.

Common methods of biological age estimation

At present, no single indicator could be used as a golden index to estimate aging process. The biological age (BA), which combines several important biomarkers with mathematical modeling, has been proposed for >50 years as an aging estimation method to replace chronological age (CA). The common methods used for BA estimation include the multiple linear regression (MLR), the principal component analysis (PCA), the Hochschild's method, and the Klemera and Doubal's method (KDM). The fundamental differences in these four methods are the roles of CA and the selection criteria of aging biomarkers. In MLR and PCA, CA is treated as the selection criterion and an independent index. The Hochschild's method and KDM share a similar concept, making CA an independent variable. Previous studies have either simply constructed the BA model by one or compared the four methods together. However, reviews have yet to illustrate and compare the four methods systematically. Since the BA model is a potential estimation of aging for clinical use, such as predicting onset and prognosis of diseases, improving the elderly's living qualities, and realizing successful aging, here we summarize previous BA studies, illustrate the basic statistical steps, and thoroughly discuss the comparisons among the four common BA estimation methods.