| Title |
Quantification of biological aging in young adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1506264112 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel W. Belsky, Avshalom Caspi, Renate Houts, Harvey J. Cohen, David L. Corcoran, Andrea Danese, HonaLee Harrington, Salomon Israel, Morgan E. Levine, Jonathan D. Schaefer, Karen Sugden, Ben Williams, Anatoli I. Yashin, Richie Poulton, Terrie E. Moffitt |
| Abstract |
Antiaging therapies show promise in model organism research. Translation to humans is needed to address the challenges of an aging global population. Interventions to slow human aging will need to be applied to still-young individuals. However, most human aging research examines older adults, many with chronic disease. As a result, little is known about aging in young humans. We studied aging in 954 young humans, the Dunedin Study birth cohort, tracking multiple biomarkers across three time points spanning their third and fourth decades of life. We developed and validated two methods by which aging can be measured in young adults, one cross-sectional and one longitudinal. Our longitudinal measure allows quantification of the pace of coordinated physiological deterioration across multiple organ systems (e.g., pulmonary, periodontal, cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, and immune function). We applied these methods to assess biological aging in young humans who had not yet developed age-related diseases. Young individuals of the same chronological age varied in their "biological aging" (declining integrity of multiple organ systems). Already, before midlife, individuals who were aging more rapidly were less physically able, showed cognitive decline and brain aging, self-reported worse health, and looked older. Measured biological aging in young adults can be used to identify causes of aging and evaluate rejuvenation therapies. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 428 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 99 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 34 | 8% |
| Spain | 25 | 6% |
| Germany | 12 | 3% |
| Canada | 9 | 2% |
| Japan | 7 | 2% |
| Mexico | 7 | 2% |
| Sweden | 4 | <1% |
| Ireland | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 60 | 14% |
| Unknown | 167 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 286 | 67% |
| Scientists | 92 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 39 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 11 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,096 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| Austria | 3 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Russia | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 20 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1045 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 205 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 197 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 109 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 92 | 8% |
| Other | 67 | 6% |
| Other | 253 | 23% |
| Unknown | 173 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 178 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 177 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 123 | 11% |
| Psychology | 101 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 57 | 5% |
| Other | 234 | 21% |
| Unknown | 226 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1136. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2023.
All research outputs
#12,113
of 24,482,039 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#392
of 101,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71
of 267,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#4
of 917 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,482,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 917 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.