Biological age and outcomes in 3,074 gastrointestinal cancer patients
In a retrospective analysis of 3,074 gastrointestinal cancer patients, higher biological age was associated with more metastasis and poorer survival, independent of chronological age and TNM stage; the abstract reports no full text. [1]
Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed
The key findings
The study retrospectively analyzed 3,074 patients with gastrointestinal cancers and estimated biological age from clinical biomarkers. [1]
Higher biological age correlated with older chronological age, male sex, smoking, systemic inflammation and lower nutrition. [1]
Biological age was reported as a strong predictor of metastasis and survival, independent of chronological age and TNM stage. [1]
The source at a glance
- Study type / format
- Retrospective cohort analysis (abstract only)
- Population / context
- 3,074 patients with gastrointestinal cancers in a retrospective analysis.
- Summary based on
- Study abstract
- Original publication
- July 8, 2026
Biological age from biomarkers in 3,074 patients
The study retrospectively analyzed 3,074 patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Biological age was estimated from clinical biomarkers, and ΔAge was calculated as biological age minus chronological age. Patients were grouped by biological age quartiles. The authors used logistic and Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, restricted cubic splines and subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and developed and validated a prognostic nomogram that included biological age.
Supporting source [1]
Higher biological age linked to metastasis and survival
Higher biological age correlated with older chronological age, male sex, smoking, systemic inflammation and lower nutrition. The abstract states that biological age, independent of chronological age and TNM stage, is a strong predictor of metastasis and survival. ΔAge was largest in younger individuals, while the prognostic impact was most pronounced in middle-aged and older patients. These are associations from a retrospective analysis, not evidence that biological age causes metastasis or death.
Supporting source [1]
Abstract-only scope of the prognostic nomogram
The abstract reports that a prognostic nomogram integrating biological age was developed and validated, but gives no validation cohort, follow-up duration or effect sizes. It also does not report how the biomarker-based estimate of biological age was defined. The full text was not reviewed, so these details cannot be checked here. The authors suggest that incorporating biological age may improve risk stratification and individualized management; this is a proposal, not a validated clinical tool.
Supporting source [1]
How to interpret this
Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. The abstract does not report how biological age was defined, validation cohort details, follow-up duration or effect sizes. Findings are retrospective associations, not causal evidence.
Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.
Source & supporting passages
Zheng J, Song C, Xu H, Guo Z, Investigation on Nutrition Status and Clinical Outcome of Common Cancers (INSCOC) Group. · europepmc.org · July 8, 2026