| Literature DB >> 36151431 |
Johanna Drewelies1,2, Gizem Hueluer3, Sandra Duezel4, Valentin Max Vetter5,6, Graham Pawelec7,8, Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen6, Gert G Wagner4,9, Ulman Lindenberger4,10, Christina M Lill11,12,13, Lars Bertram11,14, Denis Gerstorf5,9, Ilja Demuth6.
Abstract
Biomarkers defining biological age are typically laborious or expensive to assess. Instead, in the current study, we identified parameters based on standard laboratory blood tests across metabolic, cardiovascular, inflammatory, and kidney functioning that had been assessed in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE) (n = 384) and Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II) (n = 1517). We calculated biological age using those 12 parameters that individually predicted mortality hazards over 26 years in BASE. In BASE, older biological age was associated with more physician-observed morbidity and higher mortality hazards, over and above the effects of chronological age, sex, and education. Similarly, in BASE-II, biological age was associated with physician-observed morbidity and subjective health, over and above the effects of chronological age, sex, and education as well as alternative biomarkers including telomere length, DNA methylation age, skin age, and subjective age but not PhenoAge. We discuss the importance of biological age as one indicator of aging.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; BASE-II; Bioage; Biological age; Biomarkers; Mortality
Year: 2022 PMID: 36151431 DOI: 10.1007/s11357-022-00662-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geroscience ISSN: 2509-2723 Impact factor: 7.581