ArticleResearch square2024
Maximizing Insights from Longitudinal Epigenetic Age Data: Simulations, Applications, and Practical Guidance.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Epigenetic Age (EA) is an age estimate, developed using DNA methylation (DNAm) states of selected CpG sites across the genome. Although EA and chronological age are highly correlated, EA may not increase uniformly with time. Departures, known as epigenetic age acceleration (EAA), are common and have been linked to various traits and future disease risk. Limited by available data, most studies investigating these relationships have been cross-sectional - using a single EA measurement. However, the recent growth in longitudinal DNAm studies has led to analyses of associations with EA over time. These studies differ in (i) their choice of model; (ii) the primary outcome (EA vs. EAA); and (iii) in their use of chronological age or age-independent time variables to account for the temporal dynamic. We evaluated the robustness of each approach using simulations and tested our results in two real-world examples, using biological sex and birthweight as predictors of longitudinal EA. Results: Our simulations showed most accurate effect sizes in a linear mixed model or generalized estimating equation, using chronological age as the time variable. The use of EA versus EAA as an outcome did not strongly impact estimates. Applying the optimal model in real-world data uncovered an accelerated EA rate in males and an advanced EA that decelerates over time in children with higher birthweight. Conclusion: Our results can serve as a guide for forthcoming longitudinal EA studies, aiding in methodological decisions that may determine whether an association is accurately estimated, overestimated, or potentially overlooked.
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.