Home › Research › Biomarkers
Biological age in healthy elderly predicts aging-related diseases including dementia
Wu JW, Yaqub A, Ma Y, Koudstaal W, Hofman A, Ikram MA, Ghanbari M, Goudsmit J.. Scientific reports, 2021-08-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Application of biological age as a measure of an individual´s health status offers new perspectives into extension of both lifespan and healthspan. While algorithms predicting mortality and most aging-related morbidities have been reported, the major shortcoming has been an inability to predict dementia. We present a community-based cohort study of 1930 participants with a mean age of 72 years and a follow-up period of over 7 years, using two variants of a phenotypic blood-based algorithm that either excludes (BioAge1) or includes (BioAge2) neurofilament light chain (NfL) as a neurodegenerative marker. BioAge1 and BioAge2 predict dementia equally well, as well as lifespan and healthspan. Each one-year increase in BioAge1/2 was associated with 11% elevated risk (HR 1.11; 95%CI 1.08-1.14) of mortality and 7% elevated risk (HR 1.07; 95%CI 1.05-1.09) of first morbidities. We additionally tested the association of microRNAs with age and identified 263 microRNAs significantly associated with biological and chronological age alike. Top differentially expressed microRNAs based on biological age had a higher significance level than those based on chronological age, suggesting that biological age captures aspects of aging signals at the epigenetic level. We conclude that accelerated biological age for a given age is a predictor of major age-related morbidity, including dementia, among healthy elderly.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wu, J. W., Yaqub, A., Ma, Y., Koudstaal, W., Hofman, A., Ikram, M. A., et al. (2021). Biological age in healthy elderly predicts aging-related diseases including dementia. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95425-5
Vancouver
Wu JW, Yaqub A, Ma Y, Koudstaal W, Hofman A, Ikram MA, et al. Biological age in healthy elderly predicts aging-related diseases including dementia. Scientific reports. 2021. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95425-5. PMID: 34354164.
BibTeX
@article{wu2021-34354164,
author = {Wu, J. W. and Yaqub, A. and Ma, Y. and Koudstaal, W. and Hofman, A. and Ikram, M. A. and Ghanbari, M. and Goudsmit, J.},
title = {{Biological age in healthy elderly predicts aging-related diseases including dementia}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-021-95425-5},
pmid = {34354164},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95425-5}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Each one-year increase in BioAge1/2 was associated with 11% elevated risk (HR 1.11; 95%CI 1.08-1.14) of mortality and 7% elevated risk (HR 1.07; 95%CI 1.05-1.09) of first morbidities.
- We additionally tested the association of microRNAs with age and identified 263 microRNAs significantly associated with biological and chronological age alike.
- Top differentially expressed microRNAs based on biological age had a higher significance level than those based on chronological age, suggesting that biological age captures aspects of aging signals at the epigenetic level.
- We conclude that accelerated biological age for a given age is a predictor of major age-related morbidity, including dementia, among healthy elderly.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants1,930
- Effect sizeHR 1.11; HR 1.07
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 74/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,930 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34354164) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “biological-age”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biological-age”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.