ArticleGeroScience2026
Association and predictive values of nine biological age measures for cardiovascular disease mortality: screening and validation from two prospective cohort studies.
Article in GeroScience, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological age (BA) reflects the aging process more accurately than chronological age. This study aimed to evaluate the associations and predictive values of nine BA measures for mortality outcomes. BA measures were developed using data from the Yixing Cohort Study (YCS; N = 4,128) and externally validated in the Jurong Cohort Study (JCS; N = 16,652). Dose-response relationships between the clinical indices and all-cause death were assessed using restricted cubic spline analysis. Statistically significant predictors were then integrated into BA estimates using nine different algorithms. The difference between BA and chronological age, termed delta age (DA), was calculated, and its association with mortality outcomes was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. The hazard ratios (HRs) of the association of the nine DAs with mortality were greater for CVD death than all-cause death, with the DA derived from the Klemera and Doubal Method 2 (KDM2) showing the strongest association with CVD death (YCS: HR(95% CI) = 1.325 (1.060-1.656); JCS: HR(95% CI) = 1.167(1.101-1.236); P < 0.05) and all-cause death (YCS: HR(95% CI) = 1.203(1.075-1.346); JCS: HR(95% CI) = 1.089 (1.050-1.129); P < 0.05). Incorporating KDM2-based DA into the traditional risk factors model significantly improved the prediction of CVD death, as reflected by net reclassification improvement (YCS: NRI = 7.9%; JCS: NRI = 9.1%; P < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement (YCS: IDI = 0.4%; JCS: IDI = 0.7%; P < 0.001). Our findings support that KDM2-based aging measures could serve as a complementary tool for identifying people at high risk of CVD events and all-cause death.
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.