Jia Linpei, Zhang Weiguang, Chen Xiangmei
Department of Nephrology, Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province.
Department of Nephrology, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing.
Clin Interv Aging. 2017 May 11;12:759-772. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S134921. eCollection 2017.
At present, no single indicator could be used as a golden index to estimate aging process. The biological age (BA), which combines several important biomarkers with mathematical modeling, has been proposed for >50 years as an aging estimation method to replace chronological age (CA). The common methods used for BA estimation include the multiple linear regression (MLR), the principal component analysis (PCA), the Hochschild's method, and the Klemera and Doubal's method (KDM). The fundamental differences in these four methods are the roles of CA and the selection criteria of aging biomarkers. In MLR and PCA, CA is treated as the selection criterion and an independent index. The Hochschild's method and KDM share a similar concept, making CA an independent variable. Previous studies have either simply constructed the BA model by one or compared the four methods together. However, reviews have yet to illustrate and compare the four methods systematically. Since the BA model is a potential estimation of aging for clinical use, such as predicting onset and prognosis of diseases, improving the elderly's living qualities, and realizing successful aging, here we summarize previous BA studies, illustrate the basic statistical steps, and thoroughly discuss the comparisons among the four common BA estimation methods.
目前，尚无单一指标可作为评估衰老过程的黄金指标。生物年龄（BA）通过数学建模结合了多种重要生物标志物，作为一种衰老评估方法已被提出50多年，用以取代实足年龄（CA）。用于BA评估的常见方法包括多元线性回归（MLR）、主成分分析（PCA）、霍希尔德方法以及克莱梅拉和杜巴尔方法（KDM）。这四种方法的根本差异在于CA的作用以及衰老生物标志物的选择标准。在MLR和PCA中，CA被视为选择标准和独立指标。霍希尔德方法和KDM有相似的概念，将CA作为自变量。以往的研究要么仅用一种方法简单构建BA模型，要么将这四种方法进行比较。然而，综述尚未对这四种方法进行系统的阐述和比较。由于BA模型是一种用于临床的潜在衰老评估方法，如预测疾病的发生和预后、提高老年人的生活质量以及实现成功衰老，在此我们总结以往的BA研究，阐述基本的统计步骤，并深入讨论四种常见BA评估方法之间的比较。
