ArticlePopulation health metrics2022
An objective metric of individual health and aging for population surveys.
Article in Population health metrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- No winners or losers: clinical chemistry-based biological aging metrics perform similarly across cohorts and health outcomes.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025Article
- Validation of biomarkers of aging.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Physiological Dysregulation Proceeds and Predicts Health Outcomes Similarly in Chinese and Western Populations.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024Article
- Self-Assessed Health Status of Individuals with Chronic Diseases During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2024Article
- Impact of China's digital economy development on the health of middle-aged and older people: an air pollution-based perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- An objective metric of individual health and aging for population surveys.Population health metrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have previously developed and validated a biomarker-based metric of overall health status using Mahalanobis distance (DM) to measure how far from the norm of a reference population (RP) an individual's biomarker profile is. DM is not particularly sensitive to the choice of biomarkers; however, this makes comparison across studies difficult. Here we aimed to identify and validate a standard, optimized version of DM that would be highly stable across populations, while using fewer and more commonly measured biomarkers.
methodsUsing three datasets (the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, Invecchiare in Chianti and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), we selected the most stable sets of biomarkers in all three populations, notably when interchanging RPs across populations. We performed regression models, using a fourth dataset (the Women's Health and Aging Study), to compare the new DM sets to other well-known metrics [allostatic load (AL) and self-assessed health (SAH)] in their association with diverse health outcomes: mortality, frailty, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and comorbidity number.
resultsA nine- (DM9) and a seventeen-biomarker set (DM17) were identified as highly stable regardless of the chosen RP (e.g.: mean correlation among versions generated by interchanging RPs across dataset of r = 0.94 for both DM9 and DM17). In general, DM17 and DM9 were both competitive compared with AL and SAH in predicting aging correlates, with some exceptions for DM9. For example, DM9, DM17, AL, and SAH all predicted mortality to a similar extent (ranges of hazard ratios of 1.15-1.30, 1.21-1.36, 1.17-1.38, and 1.17-1.49, respectively). On the other hand, DM9 predicted CVD less well than DM17 (ranges of odds ratios of 0.97-1.08, 1.07-1.85, respectively).
conclusionsThe metrics we propose here are easy to measure with data that are already available in a wide array of panel, cohort, and clinical studies. The standardized versions here lose a small amount of predictive power compared to more complete versions, but are nonetheless competitive with existing metrics of overall health. DM17 performs slightly better than DM9 and should be preferred in most cases, but DM9 may still be used when a more limited number of biomarkers is available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.