EG-BINN: Parameter-Efficient Ensembling of Gated Biologically Informed Neural Networks for Epigenetic Age Estimation
Open accessAbstract
Epigenetic aging clocks are widely used to evaluate biological aging, disease risk, and clinical interventions. However, most existing clocks rely on linear models that overlook nonlinear relationships between age and methylation patterns, or on deep learning architectures that are parameter-intensive and difficult to interpret. We developed EG-BINN, a parameter-efficient ensemble of biologically informed neural networks that uses sample-specific gating to modulate representations across biologically annotated nodes. Trained on 93 multi-tissue datasets, EG-BINN achieved the lowest mean and median absolute errors among matched linear and nonlinear baselines in five-fold cross-validation, as well as the lowest mean absolute and root mean squared errors across eight held-out Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets. Analysis of the gating mechanism revealed widespread associations between pathway gate values and age, including trajectories that varied across blood, adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, and liver. Across 11 TCGA cohorts, EG-BINN identified significant tumor--normal differences in residual epigenetic age acceleration in six cohorts, whereas Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) highlighted recurrent pathway nodes contributing to tumor age predictions. EG-BINN combines accurate pan-tissue age prediction with an explainable architecture for examining biologically labeled nodes across age, tissue, and disease contexts.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Biologically informed deep neural network for prostate cancer discovery
Elmarakeby, H. A., Hwang, J., Arafeh, R., Crowdis, J., Gang, S., Liu, D., AlDubayan, S. H., Salari, K., Kregel, S., Richter, C., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03922-4 · Cited by 456 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Edwards, T., Long, Q., & Shen, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Edwards, Travyse
- Venue
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2026-10-22
- OpenAlex
- W7223390329
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (HG000046., AG066833)
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG071470, U19AG074879)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Keywords
- epigenetic age estimation, epigenetic clocks, DNA methylation, parameter-efficient neural networks, epigenetic age acceleration, explainable deep learning
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