↓ Skip to main content

Testing predictions of the programmed and stochastic theories of aging: Comparison of variation in age at death, menopause, and sexual maturation

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemistry (00062979), July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Testing predictions of the programmed and stochastic theories of aging: Comparison of variation in age at death, menopause, and sexual maturation
Published in
Biochemistry (00062979), July 2012
DOI 10.1134/s0006297912070085
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. S. Gavrilova, L. A. Gavrilov, F. F. Severin, V. P. Skulachev

Abstract

One of the arguments against aging being programmed is the assumption that variation in the timing of aging-related outcomes is much higher compared to variation in timing of the events programmed by ontogenesis. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of this argument. To this aim, we compared absolute variability (standard deviation) and relative variability (coefficient of variation) for parameters that are known to be determined by the developmental program (age at sexual maturity) with variability of characteristics related to aging (ages at menopause and death). We used information on the ages at sexual maturation (menarche) and menopause from the nationally representative survey of the adult population of the United States (MIDUS) as well as published data for 14 countries. We found that coefficients of variation are in the range of 8-13% for age at menarche, 7-11% for age at menopause, and 16-21% for age at death. Thus, the relative variability for the age at death is only twice higher than for the age at menarche, while the relative variability for the age at menopause is almost the same as for the age at menarche.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Researcher 6 29%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 24%
Social Sciences 4 19%
Unspecified 3 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 10%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2014.
All research outputs
#10,919,396
of 12,322,056 outputs
Outputs from Biochemistry (00062979)
#18,411
of 19,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,256
of 221,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemistry (00062979)
#55
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,322,056 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,080 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.