Here is the [Google Doc] with @bowtiedshrike 's skeleton (Longevity Biomarkers Draft - Google Docs)
I propose working inside this doc. It is currently opened for editing for everyone, please let me know if I should restrict the access.
17 July is fine for me
4 Likes
I see what you mean. If a p-value went from 0.001 to 0.01, the ratio would âworsenâ, but it could happen by chance alone and tell nothing about the biomarkerâs predictive power. Letâs see if I can put in additional variables and find a workaround to this problem. But itâs on the back-burner for now.
Regarding the review, I like some markers more than others. I would like to write on physiological markers â functional, like gait speed, grip strength, and anatomical, like markers of vascular health. Skin autofluorescence and few others too. Additionally, I can write on laboratory blood markers. I wonder if @strygah might want to trade markers with me (physiologic markers for age clocks).
One more thing. Due to prior commitments, I wonât be able to start writing before the beginning of August.
1 Like
I can, though I am less qualified in age clocks.
Probably even better idea would be for me to do both (age clocks and physiological), and then @rpill will add depth to both as well in August?
3 Likes
I am very sorry, I will not be able to hit the 17 July deadline, have unexpected (very bad) family issues and the time I planned to allocate to the review will need to be spent with family. 21-22 July should be viable for me though.
1 Like
Given that rpill is delayed too, we can push the deadline back a week to July 24.
Prayers for you and your family.
1 Like
It seems like a nice squad has formed here. What do yâall propose as next steps and how can I facilitate and empower yâall?
1 Like
I still owe a chapter, sorry for the delay. Death of a family member and moving to another country took a lot of time - still struggling with task overflow
1 Like
Condolences 
No worries and no rush at all 
1 Like
@strygah and @rpill would Labor Day (Sept 5) work as a target to have the first bits up? Would be great if @Derek and VictorB still want to be part of it, but once we get the first few parts done, we can just expand to fill in what people donât do, and update the author list as needed based on contributions.
For the first draft, this does not have to be the final product. First step is words on the page, and then we can refine from there. For example my part is very high level. Maybe we stay that way, maybe we polish it a lot more.
2 Likes
Hello! Yeah, my writing is long overdue. Okay, I will aim for September 5 to have my first draft.
2 Likes
Sorry, been caught up with outstanding tasks. My first draft will be done by the end of the week.
1 Like
Iâve done some progress
Now working on a comparison table
Hey! Hereâs my bit. I still need to write about bloodwork panels and urine biomarkers, so the final text will be twice as long. Comments are open.
3 Likes
Added your part into the document @strygah set up.
Looks like we still have panels, clocks, comorbidities and neurologic markers in the outline, and would be good to flesh out phenotypic ones more.
I will work on comorbidities. @rpill would you be able to do panels and neurologic markers, @strygah age clocks and phenotypic markers?
October will be busier than Sept for me, but letâs see if we can get an initial draft of these by the end of Oct.
@bowtiedshrike Hello! Yes, I will finalize the panel bit. If no one joins us for the neurologic markers part, I can have a go at it too.
Excited about this, pinged Alex if he is interested to contributeâŚ
Bryans measurements are also an interesting reference
and the criteria he came up with: Bam Criteria â blueprint
3 Likes
I have mixed feelings on his criteria 5-7. On one hand, the whole purpose of a marker is just that it reports, not that it has any causality. On the other hand, people will try to game markers, and focus on âhow do I make marker go downâ instead of âhow do I improve longevityâ.
I also think he missed discussion of robustness and ease/cost for the markers. If itâs cheap and easy, it is scalable. If itâs robust it will take less interpretation. Way too many studies show a tiny change that is significant with stats wizardry and n = 10,000, and then âFactor X is involved in cancer/atherosclerosis/etcâ. Or maybe this is what is behind points 5-7.
Hi, I would be happy to join and contribute. Please reply if you need any assistance.
E.g. if you provide links to some articles Iâll be happy to summarise the results.
1 Like
Hi, @evgenity! The neurologic markers part is available. Youâll have to write it on your own â i.e. sieve through the literature and do a critical assessment.
2 Likes