ABSTRACT
Aging is a multifaceted and intricate physiological process characterized by a gradual decline in functional capacity, leading to increased susceptibility to diseases and mortality. While chronological age serves as a strong risk factor for age-related health conditions, considerable heterogeneity exists in the aging trajectories of individuals, suggesting that biological age may provide a more nuanced understanding of the aging process. However, the concept of biological age lacks a clear operationalization, leading to the development of various biological age predictors without a solid statistical foundation. This paper addresses these limitations by proposing a comprehensive operationalization of biological age, introducing the "AccelerAge" framework for predicting biological age, and introducing previously underutilized evaluation measures for assessing the performance of biological age predictors. The AccelerAge framework, based on Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) models, directly models the effect of candidate predictors of aging on an individual's survival time, aligning with the prevalent metaphor of aging as a clock. We compare predictors based on the AccelerAge framework to a predictor based on the GrimAge predictor, which is considered one of the best-performing biological age predictors, using simulated data as well as data from the UK Biobank and the Leiden Longevity Study. Our approach seeks to establish a robust statistical foundation for biological age clocks, enabling a more accurate and interpretable assessment of an individual's aging status.
Subject(s)
Aging , Models, Statistical , Humans , Aging/physiology , Aged , Middle Aged , Female , Male , Longevity , Adult , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
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.
