Back

Contributions of immune cell biomarkers to explaining differences in mortality risk by sex in the Health and Retirement Study

Yin, M. A.; Nguyen, V.; Nathan, A.; Patel, C.

2026-05-29 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.05.27.26354256 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: It is well-established that males have a higher mortality risk than females. Immune cells and their function are known to undergo characteristic changes during aging, and immune cells are known to have sex differences. Immune cells and their function have been linked to mortality risk, but no studies have investigated to what degree, if at all, Immune Cell Biomarkers (ICBs) contribute to the known differences in mortality risk by sex. Methods: Using participant data from the Health and Retirement Study (n = 8,822), we applied multivariable linear regressions adjusting for age, cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus, sex, and race/ethnicity to identify differences by sex in 48 immune cell biomarker (ICB, e.g. T cells, B cells, Monocytes, etc.) percentages and counts (measured in 2016). We studied how the associations between ICBs and mortality risk differ by sex using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models. We estimated how inclusion of sex explained the relationship between ICBs and all-cause mortality, and conversely, how inclusion of individual and all ICBs combined explain the relationship between sex and all-cause mortality using multivariable modeling approaches. Results: Differences in ICBs by sex range between 2-38% (39/48 statistically significant). 9 ICBs were significantly associated with mortality risk in the entire sample. While different ICBs were significantly associated with mortality risk in the stratified analyses, particularly with respect to monocyte, B cell, and NK cell populations, adjusting for sex modestly influenced the hazard ratios of the ICBs (sex: 8 ICBs, percent change <5.4%). Furthermore, individual and cumulative contributions of ICBs in explaining the differences in mortality risk by sex were not significant.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.5%
2
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.6%
4
Clinical Epigenetics
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
Aging Cell
144 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
6
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
7
Epigenetics
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
8
The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
9
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
10
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.5%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.2%
13
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
15
Experimental Gerontology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
16
Demographic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
18
npj Aging
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 47%
0.7%
20
Behavior Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
21
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%