Usage Information
Abstract
The biological age of organs may better quantify risk for health deterioration compared with chronological age. We investigated organ-specific aging patterns in a community-based cohort and assessed the associations with adverse health outcomes. Biological ages of 11 organs were estimated for 11,757 participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (55.6% women, mean age, 57.1 years) using a circulating protein–based model. Older organ ages were significantly associated with related adverse outcomes, even after accounting for chronological age; for example, older arteries and hearts were associated with an increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD; hazard ratio [HR] per 5-year-higher age gap, 1.22; 95% CI [1.13–1.31] and 1.16 [1.07–1.26], respectively, and older lungs with lung cancer (HR 1.12 [1.09–1.16]). Hierarchical agglomerative clustering based on organ ages revealed 3 patient phenotypes: those with older organs, normal/slightly older organs, and younger organs. The patients with older organs were at higher risk for cancer (HR 1.19; 95% CI [1.08–1.31]), death (HR 1.75 [1.64–1.86]), end-stage kidney disease (HR 6.12 [4.65–8.06]), CHD (HR 1.21 [1.06–1.38]), heart failure (HR 1.92 [1.73–2.13]), infection (HR 1.56 [1.44–1.68]), and stroke (HR 1.36 [1.16–1.61]). Proteomic organ aging signatures demonstrated significant associations with multiple adverse health outcomes and may be useful for health risk identification.
Authors
Celina S. Liu, Wan-Jin Yeo, Aditya Surapaneni, B. Gwen Windham, Hamilton S.-H. Oh, Anna Prizment, Sanaz Sedaghat, Pascal Schlosser, Eugene P. Rhee, Sushrut S. Waikar, Josef Coresh, Keenan A. Walker, Morgan E. Grams
Usage data is cumulative from December 2025 through January 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 863 | 0 |
| 222 | 0 | |
| Figure | 166 | 0 |
| Table | 64 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 131 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 78 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,524 | 0 |
| Total Views | 1,524 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
