Evidence Hub

Proteomic organ-specific ageing signatures and 20-year risk of age-related diseases: the Whitehall II observational cohort study

M. Kivimäki, Philipp Frank, J. Pentti, M. Jokela, S. Nyberg, Acer Blake, J. Lindbohm, H. Oh et al.

The Lancet Digital Health, 2025

45 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Biological ageing is known to vary among different organs within an individual, but the extent to which advanced ageing of specific organs increases the risk of age-related diseases in the same and other organs remains poorly understood.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, to assess the biological age of an individual's organs relative to those of same-aged peers, ie, organ age gaps, we collected plasma samples from 6235 middle-aged (age 45-69 years) participants of the Whitehall II prospective cohort study in London, UK, in 1997-99. Age gaps of nine organs were determined from plasma proteins via SomaScan (SomaLogic; Boulder, CO, USA) using the Python package organage. Following this assessment, we tracked participants for 20 years through linkage to national health records. Study outcomes were 45 individual age-related diseases and multimorbidity.

FINDINGS

Over 123 712 person-years of observation (mean follow-up 19·8 years [SD 3·6]), after excluding baseline disease cases and adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and age gaps in organs other than the one under investigation, individuals with large organ age gaps showed an increased risk of 30 diseases. Six diseases were exclusively associated with accelerated ageing of their respective organ: liver failure (hazard ratio [HR] per SD increment in the organ age gap 2·13 [95% CI 1·41-3·22]), dilated cardiomyopathy (HR 1·65 [1·28-2·12]), chronic heart failure (HR 1·52 [1·40-1·65]), lung cancer (HR 1·29…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free