Towards a consensus definition of allostatic load: a multi-cohort, multi-system, multi-biomarker individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis
Cathal McCrory · Sinead McLoughlin · Richard Layte · Cliona NiCheallaigh · Aisling M. O’Halloran · Henrique Barros · Lisa F. Berkman · Murielle Bochud · Eileen M. Crimmins · Meagan T. Farrell · Silvia Fraga · Emily Grundy · Michelle Kelly-Irving · Dusan Petrovic · Teresa Seeman · Silvia Stringhini · Peter Vollenveider · Rose Anne Kenny
Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2023
What the research tells us
This multi-cohort analysis narrows the candidate markers for allostatic-load measurement. A five-marker combination—CRP, resting heart rate, HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio and HbA1c—performed similarly to longer combinations for mortality prediction within the study. Peak expiratory flow offered additional information. The contribution is a candidate set for harmonisation.
Scope & interpretation
Cohorts were selected by data availability. Most health outcomes were cross-sectional, and mortality follow-up varied. Selection against health outcomes does not establish stress specificity or an individual diagnostic threshold. Younger populations, medication effects, sex differences and external calibration require further evaluation.
Study at a glance
- POPULATION & SAMPLE
- 13 cohorts with 67,126 participants aged 40–111; mortality information was available in 10 cohorts.
- EXPOSURE / INTERVENTION / SUBJECT
- Two-stage individual-participant-data meta-analysis comparing 40 biomarkers from 12 systems and combinations of different lengths.
- OUTCOMES
- Health and functional measures and mortality; mortality was analysed as a binary outcome rather than a uniform follow-up survival model.
- TIME FRAME
- Mortality follow-up varied approximately 2–14 years; other major health outcomes were cross-sectional.
Cited on this site
Same Biomarkers, Different ScoresEditorial & review record
Record for v0.3 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗Scope of this reading note
Author-version study populations, statistical analysis, five-marker comparisons and recommendations. Tables S5/S6, external calibration and all cohort supplements remain to be examined.
- Study funding
- Support included Health Research Board EIA-2017-012, ESRC ES/T014083/1 and ERC Gendhi funding. Cohorts had additional funding, including some commercial support; consult the full acknowledgements.
- Competing interests
- The separate interest statement and all cohort-level disclosures have not been fully checked.
Project support
Founded and supported by Resilio.
Revision history
- · v0.3
Added the 13-cohort selection methods, mortality-analysis definition and limits of the five-marker combination.