4.5 Article

Trajectories of physiological dysregulation predicts mortality and health outcomes in a consistent manner across three populations

期刊

MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 56-63

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2014.10.001

关键词

Diseases; Longitudinal trajectories; Mahalanobis distance; Mortality; Physiological dysregulation

资金

  1. Centre de recherche sur le vieillissement
  2. CIHR [110789, 120305, 119485]
  3. NSERC [402079-2011]
  4. Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging
  5. FRQ-S

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanistic and evolutionary perspectives both agree that aging involves multiple integrated biochemical networks in the organism. In particular, the homeostatic physiological dysregulation (PD) hypothesis contends that aging is caused by the progressive breakdown of key regulatory processes. However, nothing is yet known about the specifics of how PD changes with age and affects health. Using a recently validated measure of PD involving the calculation of a multivariate distance (D-M) from biomarker data, we show that PD trajectories predict mortality, frailty, and chronic diseases (cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes). Specifically, relative risks of outcomes associated with individual slopes in (i.e. rate of) dysregulation range 1.20-1.40 per unit slope. We confirm the results by replicating the analysis using two suites of biomarkers selected with markedly different criteria and, for mortality, in three longitudinal cohort-based studies. Overall, the consistence of effect sizes (direction and magnitude) across data sets, biomarker suites and outcomes suggests that the positive relationship between D-M and health outcomes is a general phenomenon found across human populations. Therefore, the study of dysregulation trajectories should allow important insights into aging physiology and provide clinically meaningful predictors of outcomes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据