Cited by 3Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrailty in Older Adults

Development and Validation of Deep Learning‐ and Ensemble Learning‐Based Biological Ages in the NHANES Study

Open access
Huang, Yushu, Yang, Xifan, Wang, Qi, Abula, Adila, Dong, Yue, Li, Wenyuan·2025·Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience

Abstract

Introduction: Conventional machine learning (ML) approaches for constructing biological age (BA) have predominantly relied on blood-based markers, limiting their scope. This study aims to develop and validate novel ML-based BA models using a comprehensive set of clinical, behavioral, and socioeconomic factors and evaluate their predictive performance for mortality. Methods: We analyzed data from 24,985 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2010, with follow-up extending to 31 December 2019, or until death or loss to follow-up. Thirty features, including blood and urine biochemistry, physical examination data, behavioral traits, and socioeconomic factors, were selected using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO). These features were utilized to train deep neural networks (DNN) and ensemble learning models, specifically the Deep Biological Age (DBA) and Ensemble Biological Age (EnBA), with chronological age (CA) as the reference label. Model performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), while interpretability was explored using Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP). Predictive accuracy of DBA and EnBA for mortality was compared with Phenotypic Age (PhenoAge) using the area under the curve (AUC) derived from Cox proportional hazards models and hazard ratios (HR), adjusted for demographics and lifestyle factors. Sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure robustness. Results: DBA and EnBA accurately predicted actual age (MAE = 2.98 and 3.58 years, respectively) and demonstrated strong predictive capability for all-cause mortality, with AUCs of 0.896 (95% CI: 0.891–0.898) for DBA and 0.889 (95% CI: 0.884–0.894) for EnBA. Higher DBA and EnBA accelerations were significantly associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 1.059 and 1.039, respectively). SHAP analysis highlighted prescription medication usage, hepatitis B surface antibody status, and vigorous physical activity as the most influential features contributing to DBA predictions. Furthermore, BA acceleration was linked to elevated risk of death from specific chronic conditions, including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and cancer. Discussion: Our study successfully developed and validated two ML-based BA models capable of accurately predicting both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. These findings suggest that the DBA and EnBA models hold promise for early identification of high-risk individuals, potentially facilitating timely preventive interventions and improving population health outcomes.

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 · 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1532884

Cites

48 of 48 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?

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

Cited by

Authors
Huang, Y., Yang, X., Wang, Q., Abula, A., Dong, Y., & Li, W.
Affiliations
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Wenyuan
Venue
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Published
2025-07-16
Volume
17
Pages
1532884-1532884
ISSN
1663-4365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412465853
Cited by
3
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82203984)
  • Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
biological age, all-cause mortality, mortality prediction, deep neural network, ensemble learning, NHANES, blood and urine biomarkers, socioeconomic factors, prescription drug use, hepatitis B surface antibody, high-intensity exercise, phenotypic age, SHAP, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality, cerebrovascular disease mortality, accelerated aging, LASSO feature selection, model validation

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