Back

Estimation of biological age using HRV data: comparison of the Klemera-Dubal method with the multiple linear regression method

Pysaruk, A.

2026-07-27 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.07.23.740028 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The aim of this study was to compare three methods for estimating biological age (BA) based on heart rate variability (HRV) indices recorded in the supine position: multiple linear regression (MLR), MLR corrected for regression-to-the-mean bias using the Dubina method (1984), and the Klemera-Doubal Method (KDM, 2006). A total of 343 subjects were examined (193 women and 150 men aged 20-90 years); nine time- and frequency-domain HRV indices were analyzed (NN, lnSDNN, lnRMSSD, lnVLF, lnLF, lnHF, VLF%, LF%, HF%). The association between HRV indices and chronological age was substantially in women and men (p<0.01). KDM produced the lowest estimation error (MAE=4.34 years in women, 3.67 years in men), whereas uncorrected MLR produced the largest error (MAE=6.57 and 7.47 years, respectively); the Dubina correction substantially improved MLR accuracy (MAE=4.22 and 4.82 years) but relied directly on actual chronological age, which limits its independent diagnostic value. The strengths and limitations of each method and recommendations for their application are discussed.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
GeroScience
○ 109 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 9%
6.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Aging
○ 75 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
◐ 26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Neurobiology of Aging
○ 107 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
7
Biology Methods and Protocols
◐ 61 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
8
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.9%
9
Biogerontology
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
11
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
12
Aging Cell
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
13
Gene
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
14
Biology
○ 45 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
Antioxidants
○ 25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.0%
19
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
○ 30 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
20
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Biology of Sex Differences
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
22
Physiological Measurement
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
23
Journal of Clinical Medicine
○ 97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Psychology
○ 56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
IEEE Access
● 35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
Journal of Applied Physiology
● 32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
27
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
28
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.