4.5 Article

The Aging Imageomics Study: rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the study population

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111257

关键词

aging; biomarkers; radiomics; whole-body magnetic resonance imaging; population-based study; big data analyses

资金

  1. Pla Estrategic de Recerca i Innovacio en Salut (PERIS) 2016-2020 from the Department of Health, Generalitat of Catalonia [SLT002/16/00250]
  2. La Caixa Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomarkers of aging are urgently needed to identify individuals at high risk of developing age-associated disease or disability. Growing evidence from population-based studies points to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging's (MRI) enormous potential for quantifying subclinical disease burden and for assessing changes that occur with aging in all organ systems. The Aging Imageomics Study aims to identify biomarkers of human aging by analyzing imaging, biopsychosocial, cardiovascular, metabolomic, lipidomic, and microbiome variables. This study recruited 1030 participants aged >= 50 years (mean 67, range 50-96 years) that underwent structural and functional MRI to evaluate the brain, large blood vessels, heart, abdominal organs, fat, spine, musculoskeletal system and ultrasonography to assess carotid intima-media thickness and plaques. Patients were notified of incidental findings detected by a certified radiologist when necessary. Extensive data were also collected on anthropometrics, demographics, health history, neuropsychology, employment, income, family status, exposure to air pollution and cardiovascular status. In addition, several types of samples were gathered to allow for microbiome, metabolomic and lipidomic profiling. Using big data techniques to analyze all the data points from biological phenotyping together with health records and lifestyle measures, we aim to cultivate a deeper understanding about various biological factors (and combinations thereof) that underlie healthy and unhealthy aging.

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