Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

“Just clearly the right thing to do”: perspectives of correctional services leaders on moving governance of health-care in custody  

Governance models are a defining characteristic of health-care systems, yet little research is available about the governance of health-care delivered in correctional facilities. This study aims to explore the perspectives of correctional services leaders in British Columbia, ...

Published onJul 09, 2024
“Just clearly the right thing to do”: perspectives of correctional services leaders on moving governance of health-care in custody  
·

Abstract

The reliability of the associations of the acceleration of epigenetic aging (EA) indices with clinical phenotypes other than for smoking and drinking is poorly understood. Furthermore, the majority of clinical phenotyping studies have been conducted using data from subjects of European ancestry. In order to address these limitations, we conducted clinical, physiologic, and epigenetic assessments of a cohort of 278 middle-aged African American adults and analyzed the associations with the recently described principal-components-trained version of GrimAge (i.e., PC-GrimAge) and with the DunedinPACE (PACE) index using regression analyses. We found that 74% of PC-GrimAge accelerated aging could be predicted by a simple baseline model consisting of age, sex, and methylation-sensitive digital PCR (MSdPCR) assessments of smoking and drinking. The addition of other serological, demographic, and medical history variables or PACE values did not meaningfully improve the prediction, although some variables did significantly improve the model fit. In contrast, clinical variables mapping to cardiometabolic syndrome did independently contribute to the prediction of PACE values beyond the baseline model. The PACE values were poorly correlated with the GrimAge values (r = 0.2), with little overlap in variance explained other than that conveyed by smoking and drinking. The results suggest that EA indices may differ in the clinical information that they provide and may have significant limitations as screening tools to guide patient care.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?