Cargando…
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 m...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28546743 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S134921 |
_version_ | 1783237464400330752 |
---|---|
author | Jia, Linpei Zhang, Weiguang Chen, Xiangmei |
author_facet | Jia, Linpei Zhang, Weiguang Chen, Xiangmei |
author_sort | Jia, Linpei |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5436771 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54367712017-05-25 Common methods of biological age estimation Jia, Linpei Zhang, Weiguang Chen, Xiangmei Clin Interv Aging Review 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. Dove Medical Press 2017-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5436771/ /pubmed/28546743 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S134921 Text en © 2017 Jia et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Review Jia, Linpei Zhang, Weiguang Chen, Xiangmei Common methods of biological age estimation |
title | Common methods of biological age estimation |
title_full | Common methods of biological age estimation |
title_fullStr | Common methods of biological age estimation |
title_full_unstemmed | Common methods of biological age estimation |
title_short | Common methods of biological age estimation |
title_sort | common methods of biological age estimation |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28546743 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S134921 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jialinpei commonmethodsofbiologicalageestimation AT zhangweiguang commonmethodsofbiologicalageestimation AT chenxiangmei commonmethodsofbiologicalageestimation |