This preprint reports a cross-sectional analysis examining how multi-level socioeconomic disadvantage relates to systemic inflammation and biological aging in men and women. The authors used baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to test associations between socioeconomic measures (education, income, material and social deprivation) and multiple biomarkers of inflammation and aging.
The analytic sample comprised 8,516 CLSA participants with baseline measures available for inflammatory biomarkers and biological aging estimates. The mean age of participants was 62.6 years, and approximately half were female. The dataset and analyses are cross-sectional; the report notes this is a preprint that has not yet undergone peer review.
Plasma samples underwent metabolomic profiling performed by Metabolon, Inc. The authors estimated a metabolomic age separately for males and females using sex-stratified models based on metabolite levels correlated with chronological age; metabolite levels were log-transformed for calculation of metabolomic age.
DNA methylation (DNAm) data were generated using the Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC v1.0 array and used to estimate DNAm age across six established models: Horvath, Hannum, PhenoAge, GrimAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE.
Systemic inflammatory biomarkers included C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α).
Socioeconomic disadvantage was characterized by individual-level measures (education and income) and area-level indicators of material and social deprivation. Multivariable models adjusted for chronological age, major behavioral risk factors, and chronic conditions. Specific behavioral risk factors and chronic condition definitions used in adjustment were not detailed in the abstract.
The authors linked education, income, and deprivation measures to inflammatory biomarkers and biological aging metrics using generalized linear models. Models were stratified by sex and adjusted for covariates as described. Confidence intervals are reported for key estimates. Further details of modeling choices, variable coding, and sensitivity analyses were not described in the abstract.
In multivariable linear models adjusted for age, behavioral risk factors, and chronic conditions, the study found an association between lower income and higher metabolomic age in women but not in men. Specifically, compared with women earning ≥$100,000 per year, adjusted point estimates were:
The pattern across income bands in women is described as a dose-response. The authors explicitly state that a similar dose-response was not observed among men for metabolomic age.
A dose-response association between income and interleukin-6 (IL-6) was observed in both men and women. The abstract does not provide numeric estimates for IL-6 or for CRP and TNF-α associations by socioeconomic indicators beyond this statement. Details on whether DNAm clocks showed consistent associations with socioeconomic measures are not reported in the abstract.
The authors interpret the findings as evidence that socioeconomic adversity may influence inflammatory pathways and distinct biological aging processes, with a particular signal for metabolomic aging related to income among women. The findings suggest that social determinants of health may manifest in both systemic inflammation and metabolomic indicators of biological aging.
The work reports IRB approval from Johns Hopkins University (IRB00441520). The authors declared no competing interests. Funding support included an Alzheimer's Association Research Fellowship to Promote Diversity (AARF-D). The manuscript is posted on medRxiv as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed.
Because the provided text is an abstract and preprint posting, several details were not reported in the source: specific definitions and coding for behavioral risk factors and chronic conditions used in adjustment, full numeric results for CRP and TNF-α, detailed methods for constructing the sex-stratified metabolomic age models (for example, which metabolites were included), and whether DNAm age estimates showed associations with socioeconomic measures beyond the metabolomic age findings. The cross-sectional design limits causal inference; this limitation is inherent to cross-sectional analyses but specific sensitivity or longitudinal follow-up analyses were not described in the abstract.
In this large cross-sectional CLSA sample, lower income was associated with older metabolomic age in women in a graded fashion, and income showed dose-response relations with interleukin-6 in both sexes. The authors conclude that socioeconomic adversity appears linked to both inflammatory biology and distinct measures of biological aging. As a preprint, these results require peer review and further methodological detail for clinical interpretation.