ArticleBiogerontology2025
Exploring new markers for biological aging from bioimpedance analysis and cognitive functions in older adults.
Article in Biogerontology, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aging is a complex process that affects human health and lifespan. While chronological age (CA) is a significant risk factor for many diseases, it does not fully capture biological changes that influence health span. This study explores cognitive measures using the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery and body composition profiles as potential biological age (BA) markers in the older population. Multiple linear regression, principal component analysis (PCA), and the Klemera-Doubal (KDM) methods were used to construct sex-specific BA formulas from 296 healthy individuals (160 women, 136 men, mean age: 70.3 years). The BA formulas were applied to a new cohort of 708 diseased people (376 women, 332 men, mean age: 73.5 years) to generate BAs for each sex. Subsequently, we compared the classification power of CA, BAs, and selected variables when differentiating the healthy group from the comorbidity cohort, with sex stratification. As a result, we found that BAs from PCA and KDM were significantly higher than CA in the diseased group but comparable in the healthy group. BAs from PCA and KDM methods yielded higher classification accuracies than CA alone. Notably, frontal executive domain score and body reactance emerged as two promising markers for aging. These findings suggest that body composition measures and cognitive assessments offer a more accurate reflection of biological health than CA alone. A cohort with a wider age range is needed to generalize these findings.
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.