Rheographic biological age defined per hemodynamic indicators using the age equivalent of hemodynamic risk

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2026-3-14.pdf
UDC: 
612.13:612.67
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2026.3.14.eng
Authors: 

Т.P. Vasilieva1, D.О. Karimov1,2, I.А. Gundarov3, N.А. Gorbacheva1

Organization: 

1N.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, 12 Vorontsovo pole St., build. 1, Moscow, 105064, Russian Federation
2Ufa Scientific Research Institute for Occupational Medicine and Human Ecology, 94 Stepana Kuvykina St., Ufa, 450106, Russian Federation
3University for Natural and Humanitarian Sciences, 102 Mira Ave., build. 2, Moscow, 129085, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of estimating rheographic biological age as an age equivalent of he-modynamic risk and to internally validate its association with long-term mortality.

The study included data from 2,655 examined individuals, including 1,235 women and 1,420 men. Survival analysis was performed in a subsample of 2,342 observations with available follow-up data. During the follow-up period, 347 deaths were registered. Anthropometric, hemodynamic and rheographic parameters, as well as derived indices, were used as input features. For comparison, age approximation models were applied, including ridge regression, elastic net, an ensemble of extremely randomized trees and KDM-PC. The final RheoBA-Cox model for rheographic biological age was developed as an age equivalent of hemodynamic risk based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Internal validation was performed using five-fold cross-validation.

Adding RheoBA-Cox acceleration to the model including chronological age and sex increased the C-index from 0.773 to 0.815. Each 5-year increase in ΔRheoBA-Cox was associated with a 36 % increase in the risk of death. The hazard ratio was 1.36; 95 % confidence interval 1.29–1.44; p = 2.1•10-29. RheoBA-Cox enables biological age to be estimated as an age equivalent of hemodynamically determined risk rather than as a simple reconstruction of chronological age. Acceleration of RheoBA-Cox was associated with long-term mortality independently of chronological age and sex, which allows the model to be considered a promising tool for risk-oriented assessment of the functional state of the cardiovascular system.

Keywords: 
biological age, rheographic biological age, hemodynamics, rheography, Cox model, survival analysis, risk-equivalent age, mortality
Vasilieva Т.P., Karimov D.О., Gundarov I.А., Gorbacheva N.А. Rheographic biological age defined per hemodynamic indicators using the age equivalent of hemodynamic risk. Health Risk Analysis, 2026, no. 3, pp. 149–159. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2026.3.14.eng
References: 
  1. Klemera P., Doubal S. A new approach to the concept and computation of biological age. Mech. Ageing Dev., 2006, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 240–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2005.10.004
  2. Levine M.E. Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., 2013, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 667–674. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls233
  3. Bafei S.E.C., Shen C. Biomarkers selection and mathematical modeling in biological age estimation. NPJ Aging, 2023, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 13. DOI: 10.1038/s41514-023-00110-8
  4. Liu Z., Kuo P.-L., Horvath S., Crimmins E., Ferrucci L., Levine M. A new aging measure captures morbidity and mortality risk across diverse subpopulations from NHANES IV. PLoS Med., 2018, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. e1002718. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002718
  5. Fong S., Koh W.-P., Gruber J. Reframing biological age as risk-equivalent age. Nature Aging, 2026, vol. 6, pp. 2–5. DOI: 10.1038/s43587-025-01038-2
  6. Moqri M., Herzog C., Poganik J.R., Ying K., Justice J.N., Belsky D.W., Higgins-Chen A.T., Chen B.H. [et al.]. Vali-dation of biomarkers of aging. Nat. Med., 2024, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 360–372. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02784-9
  7. Viera A.J., Hart L., Gomez Altamirano P., Tuttle B., Price A., Sherwood A. Use of impedance cardiography to guide blood pressure lowering medication selection: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Hypertens., 2024, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 916–923. DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpae090
  8. Greiwe G., Saad R., Hapfelmeier A., Neumann N., Tariparast P., Saugel B., Flick M. Electrical cardiometry for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring: a method comparison study in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J. Clin. Monit. Comput., 2025, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 371–376. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-024-01246-y
  9. DeMarzo A.P. Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension. High Blood Press. Cardiovasc. Prev., 2020, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 203–213. DOI: 10.1007/s40292-020-00383-0
  10. Medina-Lezama J., Narvaez-Guerra O., Herrera-Enriquez K., Morey-Vargas O.L., Bolaños-Salazar J.F., Abugattas J.P., Zea-Diaz H., Chirinos-Revilla J.L. [et al.]. Hemodynamic patterns identified by impedance cardiography predict mortality in the general population: the PREVENCION Study. J. Am. Heart Assoc., 2018, vol. 7, no. 18, pp. e009259. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009259
  11. Lebedeva M.N., Lukjanov D.S., Novikova M.V., Novikov V.V., Vereshchagin I.P. Feasibility of impedance cardiog-raphy and impedance plethysmographyin spine surgery. Khirurgiya pozvonochnika, 2011, no. 2, pp. 058–066. DOI: 10.14531/ss2011.2.58-66 (in Russian).
  12. Dumler A.A., Podtaev S.Yu., Stepanov R.A., Frick P.G. Practical implementation of impedance reography in car-diology – new approaches. Al'manakh klinicheskoi meditsiny, 2016, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 179–185. DOI: 10.18786/2072-0505-2016-44-2-179-185 (in Russian).
  13. Troitskaya E.A., Velmakin S.V., Kobalava Z.D. Concept of vascular age: new tool in cardiovascular risk assessment. Arterial’naya gipertenziya, 2017, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 160–171. DOI: 10.18705/1607-419X-2017-23-2-160-171 (in Russian).
  14. Akopyan A.A., Strazhesko I.D., Klyashtorny V.G., Orlova Ya.A. Biological vascular age and its relationship with cardiovascular risk factors. Kardiovaskulyarnaya terapiya i profilaktika, 2022, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 2877. DOI: 10.15829/1728-8800-2022-2877 (in Russian).
  15. Samorodskaya I.V., Starinskaya M.A. Biological age and the rate of aging as a risk factor for non-communicable diseases and deaths. Profilakticheskaya meditsina, 2016, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 41–46. DOI: 10.17116/profmed201619541-46 (in Russian).
  16. Berns S.A., Savicheva A.A., Isaykina O.Yu., Veremeev A.V., Gorshkov A.Yu., Drapkina O.M. Biological age: prob-lems and prospects. Literature review. Kardiovaskulyarnaya terapiya i profilaktika, 2024, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 290–298. DOI: 10.15829/1728-8800-2024-4254 (in Russian).
  17. Handorf E.A., Smaldone M.C., Movva S., Mitra N. Analysis of survival data with nonproportional hazards: a comparison of propensity-score-weighted methods. Biom. J., 2024, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. e202200099. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202200099
  18. Alabdallah A., Ohlsson M., Pashami S., Rögnvaldsson T. The Concordance Index decomposition: A measure for a deeper understanding of survival prediction models. Artif. Intell. Med., 2024, vol. 148, pp. 102781. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2024.102781
  19. Sluiskes M.H., Goeman J.J., Beekman M., Slagboom P.E., Putter H., Rodríguez-Girondo M. Clarifying the biological and statistical assumptions of cross-sectional biological age predictors: an elaborate illustration using synthetic and real data. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 2024, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 58. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02181-x
  20. Bortz J., Guariglia A., Klaric L., Tang D., Ward P., Geer M., Chadeau-Hyam M., Vuckovic D., Joshi P.K. Biological age estimation using circulating blood biomarkers. Commun. Biol., 2023, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1089. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-023-05456-z
  21. Brook R.D., Rajagopalan S., Pope C.A. III, Brook J.R., Bhatnagar A., Diez-Roux A.V., Holguin F., Hong Y. [et al.]. Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2010, vol. 121, no. 21, pp. 2331–2378. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1
  22. Ambrose J.A., Barua R.S. The pathophysiology of cigarette smoking and cardiovascular disease: an update. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2004, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1731–1737. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.047
  23. Ashor A.W., Lara J., Siervo M., Celis-Morales C., Mathers J.C. Effects of exercise modalities on arterial stiffness and wave reflection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One, 2014, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. e110034. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110034
Received: 
17.06.2026
Approved: 
10.08.2026
Accepted for publication: 
28.09.2026

You are here

Home