Cited by 111Machine Learning in HealthcarePhysical Activity and HealthArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Extracting biological age from biomedical data via deep learning: too much of a good thing?

Open access
Pyrkov, Timothy V., Slipensky, Konstantin, Barg, Mikhail, Kondrashin, Alexey, Zhurov, Boris, Zenin, Alexander, Pyatnitskiy, Mikhail, Menshikov, Leonid +2 more·2018·Scientific Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Age-related physiological changes in humans are linearly associated with age. Naturally, linear combinations of physiological measures trained to estimate chronological age have recently emerged as a practical way to quantify aging in the form of biological age. In this work, we used one-week long physical activity records from a 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to compare three increasingly accurate biological age models: the unsupervised Principal Components Analysis (PCA) score, a multivariate linear regression, and a state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network (CNN). We found that the supervised approaches produce better chronological age estimations at the expense of a loss of the association between the aging acceleration and all-cause mortality. Consequently, we turned to the NHANES death register directly and introduced a novel way to train parametric proportional hazards models suitable for out-of-the-box implementation with any modern machine learning software. As a demonstration, we produced a separate deep CNN for mortality risks prediction that outperformed any of the biological age or a simple linear proportional hazards model. Altogether, our findings demonstrate the emerging potential of combined wearable sensors and deep learning technologies for applications involving continuous health risk monitoring and real-time feedback to patients and care providers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-018-23534-9

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Principal component analysis-based biological age estimators, which involve unsupervised dimensionality reduction to unbiasedly identify ageing signals, seemingly perform even better than clocks that train on chronological age.

    “This concept has been demonstrated by principal component analysis-based biological age estimators, which involve unsupervised dimensionality reduction to unbiasedly identify ageing signals, seemingly even better than clocks that train on chronological age173–175.”

    From Measuring biological age using omics data (2022) · cites this paper as [174]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [25]Levine ME Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci 2013 68 667 674 10.1093/gerona/gls233 23213031 PMC3660119 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pyrkov, T. V., Slipensky, K., Barg, M., Kondrashin, A., Zhurov, B., Zenin, A., Pyatnitskiy, M., Menshikov, L., Markov, S., & Fedichev, P. O.
Affiliations
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (RU)
Corresponding author
  • Pyrkov, Timothy V.
  • Fedichev, Peter O.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2018-03-26
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
5210-5210
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949288398
Cited by
111
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
biological age, chronological age estimation, physical activity, accelerated aging, all-cause mortality, proportional hazards model, mortality prediction, convolutional neural networks, principal component analysis, wearable sensors, health risk monitoring, NHANES
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Algorithms, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, Software, Exercise, Neural Networks, Computer, Principal Component Analysis, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review