Evaluating the potential of phenotypic age to enhance cardiovascular risk prediction over chronological age in the UK Biobank

Abstract

Phenotypic age acceleration (PhenoAgeAccel) is a novel biological indicator estimates an individual’s mortality risk. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the association between PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel with incident cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in the UK Biobank cohort. We analyzed data from 114,517 UK Biobank participants free of CVD history at baseline. PhenoAgeAccel of was obtained by regressing PhenoAge on chronological age (ChronoAge). We applied a Cox regression model with time-dependent variables to assess the association between PhenoAgeAccel and incident CVD. The predictive value of PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel was evaluated with reference to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) model using Kaplan-Meier curves, receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), and Harrel’s C-index. The positive PhenoAgeAccel comprised of 36.5% of the cohort. The mean ChronoAge and PhenoAge of participants in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group was 57.5 years and 61.7 years, respectively. The mean ChronoAge and PhenoAge of participants in the negative PhenoAgeAccel group was 56.1 years and 52.5 years, respectively. Incident CVD occurred at a higher rate in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group (44.8% vs. 33.1%) at a comparatively shorter period (11.2 years vs. 12.4 years). The AUC of PhenoAge in predicting incident CVD was lower than the FRS but higher than ChronoAge (69.3% vs. 70.9% vs. 68.1%, respectively). Discriminative performance was assessed using Harrell’s C-index. The model including established cardiovascular risk factors yielded a C-index of 0.670, compared to 0.674 for the model incorporating PhenoAgeAccel (difference = 0.0049, p < 0.001). Separately, the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) model achieved a higher C-index of 0.697 versus 0.674 for the PhenoAgeAccel model (difference = 0.022, p < 0.001). Kaplein-Meier survival patterns of the positive PhenoAgeAccel group was similar to the high-risk group of FRS level. At time points year 4, 8, 12, and 16, the freedom-from-CVD probability for positive PhenoAgeAccel groups versus FRS high risk groups were 86.2% vs. 85.7%, 72.6% vs. 71.1%, 60.0% vs. 57.4%, and 54.8% vs. 51.7% respectively. Positive PhenoAgeAccel was associated with higher 10-year CVD risk, suggesting its potential as an adjunct in CVD risk assessment. PhenoAge, by incorporating biological aging markers, may offer more nuanced risk insights compared to ChronoAge. These findings are primarily applicable to men, given the male predominance in the cohort, and should be interpreted with caution for women.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-025-12495-5.

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide¹. In the United States, CVD prevalence increases with age, ranging from 1.4 to 13.8% among adults aged 20–39 years, 9.2–57.6% in those aged 40–59, 19.6–77.8% for ages 60–79, and 32.8–85.9% in individuals aged ≥ 80.² To mitigate this growing burden, global strategies focus on primary prevention and risk assessment tools, such as the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations, and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation^2,3. Among these, age is a key predictive factor.

Ageing is characterized by a progressive decline in physiological function, increasing vulnerability to chronic conditions⁴. Chronological age (ChronoAge), the number of years since birth, is a major non-modifiable CVD risk factor⁵. However, individuals with the same ChronoAge often show varying susceptibility to disease and mortality, suggesting that ChronoAge may not adequately capture biological ageing. To address this, alternative measures based on clinical biomarkers have emerged⁶. One such metric, phenotypic age (PhenoAge), estimates biological ageing and has shown utility in predicting disease risk across diverse populations⁷. A positive PhenoAge acceleration (PhenoAgeAccel)—when PhenoAge exceeds ChronoAge—indicates faster biological ageing. PhenoAgeAccel has been linked to environmental exposures, chronic diseases, autoimmune and mental health conditions, and lifestyle factors^8–11. Notably, the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2023 reported an association between positive PhenoAgeAccel and poorer cardiovascular health¹². However, its role in predicting incident CVD remains unexplored.

This study aimed to examine the associations between PhenoAge, PhenoAgeAccel, and incident CVD using data from the UK Biobank, and to evaluate their predictive value for 10-year CVD risk in comparison to the FRS.

Methods

Study population and design

The UK Biobank is a prospective cohort that recruited approximately > 500,000 adults from the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2010 from 22 assessment centers. The study design and data collection methods used in the UK Biobank has been previously reported. The UK Biobank has institutional review board approval from the Northwest Multicenter Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. Secondary use of data for present analysis was approved by the Fudan University Pudong Medical Center Institutional Review Board. The study was conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines, including the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and regulations¹³.

Selection criteria

Participants with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline or those diagnosed with incident CVD within one year of recruitment were excluded. Individuals with chronic kidney disease were also excluded due to their elevated risk of both ischemic and hemorrhagic events. Those with a prior cancer diagnosis were omitted to avoid confounding overall survival analyses. Missing baseline data were not imputed.

PhenoAge and phenoageaccel

PhenoAge was developed based on mortality scores from the Gompertz proportional hazard model on ChronoAge and 9 multisystem clinical chemistry biomarkers (i.e. albumin, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, glucose, C-reactive protein, lymphocyte percentage, mean cell volume, red cell distribution width, and white blood cell count) to predict all-cause mortality using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surgery (NHANES) III data⁷. PhenoAgeAccel is the difference between one’s PhenoAge and ChronoAge. A higher PhenoAgeAccel (> 0) indicates faster biological aging.

CVD risk factors and risk assessment

ChronoAge and CVD risk factors for participants were collected from baseline. The following baseline variables were considered: blood pressure levels (systolic and diastolic), smoking history (includes active and past smokers), body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, documented prescription of CVD preventive drugs (includes antihypertensives, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and insulin), and diabetes history. The FRS was calculated based on 6 coronary risk factors including ChronoAge, gender, TC, HDL-C, systolic blood pressure, and smoking habits¹⁴. Ten-year risk in percentage were calculated by total points and the absolute CVD risk percentage over 10 years was classified as low risk (< 10%), intermediate risk (10–20%), and high risk (> 20%).

Outcome ascertainment

The outcome of this study was incident CVD, which were recorded using the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision code and defined as I20-25 for ischemic heart disease, I46-52 for cardiac arrest, rhythm disorders, and heart failure, I60-69 for cerebrovascular disease, I70 for atherosclerosis. Outcomes excluded were I51.4 for unspecified myocarditis, I60 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, I62 for subdural hemorrhage, I67.1 for cerebral aneurysm, I68.2 for cerebral arteritis, and I67.5 for moyamoya disease. The UK Biobank Outcome Adjudication Group, in conjunction with clinical experts, developed and validated algorithms based on lists of clinical codes to ascertain a range of health outcomes (https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/showcase/docs/alg_outcome_main.pdf), including myocardial infarction and stroke, which were used in this study. Censoring was defined as the time of death, withdrawal from the study or end of follow-up, whichever came first. This study was conducted using the UK Biobank resource, application 103,791.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using R Studio (Version 2023.12.1 + 402, Posit Software, PBC). Subgroup analyses (i.e. by gender, diagnosis of diabetes, positive or negative PhenoAgeAccel, 10-year CVD risk based on FRS groups, and number of CVD preventive drugs prescribed) were performed. The student t test and χ¹⁵ tests were used to compare differences in quantitative (i.e. mean ± standard deviation) and qualitative (i.e. number [%]) data, respectively. Continuous variables of normal distribution were evaluated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, whereas the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for non-normally distributed data. The relationship between PhenoAge and incident CVD was assessed using biserial correlation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the associations of PhenoAgeAccel with incident CVD, as well as estimate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with adjustment for ChronoAge, gender, smoking history, diabetes, use of CVD preventive drugs, and lipid levels. Harrell’s C-index was used to assess the discriminative performance of Cox proportional hazards models based on established CVD risk factors, PhenoAgeAccel, and the FRS. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve is plotted to compare CVD survival between PhenoAgeAccel groups. Area under receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) were obtained to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of PhenoAge towards incident CVD. A two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Participants

The final analysis included 114,517 participants. Figure 1 demonstrates the flowchart of participant selection and analytic construction. The cohort mainly comprised male participants (99.7%, n = 113,288) and the distribution of baseline characteristics is summarized in Table 1. A total of 42,782 (37.3%) participants had documented incident CVD diagnosed over a 12.0 ± 4.6 years follow-up duration.

Fig. 1.

Flow diagram showing the process of participant selection and analysis conducted.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of included participants from the UK biobank cohort and subgroup analysis according to phenoageaccel.

	All	PhenoAgeAccel		p value
		Negative	Positive
Total, n	114,517	72,708	41,809
Male, n (%)	114,228 (99.7)	72,626 (99.9)	41,602 (99.5)	< 0.001
Age, yr
Chronological	56.6 ± 8.2	56.1 ± 8.2	57.5 ± 8.1	< 0.001
Phenotypic	55.9 ± 10.1	52.5 ± 8.6	61.7 ± 9.9	< 0.001
Smoker*	74,354 (64.9)	45,646 (62.8)	28,708 (68.7)	< 0.001
DM	7125 (6.2)	2260 (3.1)	4865 (11.6)
BMI	27.4 ± 3.2	27.1 ± 3.0	27.9 ± 3.5	< 0.001
Blood pressure, mmHg
Systolic	143.0 ± 18.4	142.2 ± 18.0	143.7 ± 19.0	< 0.001
Diastolic	84.0 ± 10.4	84.0 ± 10.3	84.0 ± 10.8	0.655
CVD preventive drug
CL	30,053 (26.2)	17,013 (24.4)	13,040 (31.2)	< 0.001
Anti-HTN	30,031 (26.2)	16,333 (22.5)	13,698 (32.8)	< 0.001
Insulin	1798 (1.6)	425 (0.6)	1373 (3.3)	< 0.001
Biochemicals
WBC, 109/L	7.0 ± 1.9	6.4 ± 1.4	7.7 ± 2.2	< 0.001
RDW, %	13.4 ± 0.8	13.1 ± 0.5	13.9 ± 1.0	< 0.001
LYM%	28.0 ± 7.4	29.6 ± 7.0	25.3 ± 7.2	< 0.001
MCV, fL	91.4 ± 4.4	91.0 ± 3.8	92.1 ± 5.1	< 0.001
ALB, g/L	45.6 ± 2.6	46.1 ± 2.5	44.8 ± 2.6	< 0.001
ALP, U/L	81.6 ± 23.6	78.2 ± 19.2	87.6 ± 28.9	< 0.001
CREA, µmol/L	81.6 ± 14.8	79.2 ± 10.8	85.9 ± 19.1	< 0.001
CRP, mg/L	2.3 ± 4.1	1.6 ± 2.2	3.6 ± 5.9	< 0.001
GLU, mmol/L	5.2 ± 1.3	4.9 ± 0.6	5.7 ± 2.0	< 0.001
TC, mmol/L	5.5 ± 1.1	5.6 ± 1.1	5.4 ± 1.2	< 0.001
HDL-C, mmol/L	1.3 ± 0.3	1.3 ± 0.3	1.3 ± 0.3	< 0.001
LDL-C, mmol/L	3.5 ± 0.9	3.6 ± 0.8	3.4 ± 0.9	< 0.001
TG, mmol/L	2.0 ± 1.1	1.9 ± 1.1	2.0 ± 1.2	< 0.001
CVD Incidence	42,762 (37.3)	24,041 (33.1)	18,721 (44.8)	< 0.001

Data are presented as n(%) or means ± standard deviation unless otherwise specified.

* Includes present and past smokers.

PhenoAgeAccel, phenotypic age acceleration; Yr, year; BMI, body mass index; CVD, cardiovascular disease; CL, cholesterol-lowering; DM, diabetes mellitus; HTN, hypertension; WBC, white blood count; RDW, red cell distribution width; LYM%, lymphocyte percentage; MCV, mean corpuscular volume; ALB, albumin; ALP, alanine phosphatase; CREA, creatinine; CRP, C-reactive protein; GLU, glucose; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein – cholesterol; LDL-C, low density lipoprotein – cholesterol; TG, triglyceride.

Phenotypic ageing, phenoageaccel, and incident CVD

The mean ChronoAge and PhenoAge of participants in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group was 57.5 ± 8.1 years and 61.7 ± 9.9 years, respectively. The mean ChronoAge and PhenoAge of participants in the negative PhenoAgeAccel group was 56.1 ± 8.2 years and 52.5 ± 8.6 years, respectively. The percentage of patients with diabetes was notably higher in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group (11.6% vs. 3.1%). Incident CVD occurred at a higher rate in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group (44.8% vs. 33.1%) at a comparatively shorter period (11.2 ± 4.9 years vs. 12.4 ± 4.4 years). When distributed according to the FRS level, more than half of the participants of both positive and negative PhenoAgeAccel groups were at high risk (68.9% and 59.4%, respectively). Biserial correlation analysis showed a moderate positive correlation between PhenoAge and incident CVD (ρ = 0.322, 95% CI 0.317–0.327, p < 0.001).

Given the discrepancies in gender, a subgroup analysis between male and female patients were conducted (Table S1). Incident CVD was 1.7 times higher in the included females than males (64.4% vs. 37.3%). The mean PhenoAge of females was older than males (67.2 ± 12.9 years vs. 55.8 ± 10.1 years) and older than their ChronoAge (58.8 ± 7.2 years).

Nearly all included females were diagnosed with diabetes and all required CVD preventive drugs. Therefore, additional subgroup analysis was compared according to participant’s history of diabetes and CVD preventive drug numbers (Table S1). It was found that patients with diabetes had older mean PhenoAge than patients without diabetes (65.3 ± 11.3 years vs. 55.2 ± 9.7 years).

The AUC for ChronoAge, PhenoAge, PhenoAgeAccel, and FRS were 68.1% (68.5%, 41.4%), 69.3% (80.0%, 52.9%), 58.4% (58.9%, 58.0%), and 70.9% (73.6%, 43.1%), respectively (Fig. 2). The discriminative performance of multiple Cox models was compared using Harrell’s C-index. The model with established cardiovascular risk factors yielded a C-index of 0.670, while the model that included PhenoAgeAccel had a C-index of 0.674. The difference in C-indices was 0.0049 (p < 0.001). In a separate comparison, the FRS model showed a C-index of 0.697, compared to 0.674 for the PhenoAgeAccel model, with a difference of 0.022 (p < 0.001).

Fig. 2.

Receiver-operating characteristic curves for incident cardiovascular disease. (A) represents for chronological age; (B) represents for the Framingham Risk Scores; (C) for phenotypic age; and (D) for phenotypic age acceleration.

Table 2 presented the HR and 95% CIs of PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel on incident CVD. The associations remained robust after adjustment for potential CVD risk factors. In model 2, the multivariate adjusted HRs (95% CIs) for PhenoAge per year and PhenoAgeAccel were 1.023 (1.022–1.025, p < 0.001) and 1.222 (1.198–1.246, p < 0.001) respectively.

Table 2.

Cox regression analysis on the associations between phenotypic age, phenoageaccel, and incident CVD on follow-up.

Variable	Unadjusted		Model 1		Model 2
	HR	95% CI	HR	95% CI	HR	95% CI
Phenotypic age (per yr)	1.054***	1.053–1.055	1.037***	1.036–1.039	1.023***	1.022–1.025
PhenoAgeAccel
Negative	1		1		1
Positive	1.5***	1.471–1.529	1.393***	1.366–1.420	1.222***	1.198–1.246

Model 1: adjusted for chronological age and gender.

Model 2: additionally adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, including smoking status, diabetic status, body mass index, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and use of CVD preventive drugs (cholesterol-lowering, antihypertensives, and insulin).

PhenoAgeAccel, phenotypic age acceleration, CVD, cardiovascular disease; yr, year; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*** refers to p value < 0.001.

PhenoAgeAccel and FRS for 10-year CVD survival

Table 3 summarized the distribution of PhenoAgeAccel groups according to different FRS levels. Mean PhenoAges were slightly younger than the mean ChronoAge. There was an increase in participants with positive PhenoAgeAccel from low to high FRS levels. The incidence of CVD for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 10.8% (n = 1427), 23.2% (n = 6807), and 48.0% (n = 34528) respectively. The mean duration for CVD to occur was shorter in the high-risk group when compared to intermediate- and low-risk groups (11.0 ± 5.0 years vs. 13.3 ± 3.7 years vs. 14.3 ± 2.5 years). Kaplein-Meier survival patterns of the positive PhenoAgeAccel group was similar to the high-risk group of FRS level (Fig. 3). At time points year 4, 8, 12, and 16, the freedom-from-CVD probability for positive PhenoAgeAccel groups versus FRS high risk groups were 86.2% vs. 85.7%, 72.6% vs. 71.1%, 60.0% vs. 57.4%, and 54.8% vs. 51.7% respectively.

Table 3.

Distribution of phenoageaccel according to Framingham risk score levels.

	Low risk	Intermediate risk	High risk
Age, yrs
Chronological	46.4 ± 5.1	51.9 ± 7.2	60.4 ± 6.2
Phenotypic	44.6 ± 6.6	50.6 ± 8.6	60.1 ± 8.4
PhenoAgeAccel
Negative	9540 (72.1)	19,995 (68.2)	43,173 (60.0)
Positive	3685 (27.9)	9338 (31.8)	28,786 (40.0)

Data are presented in mean ± standard deviation or n (%).

Yrs, years; PhenoAgeAccel, phenotypic age acceleration.

Fig. 3.

Kaplan-Meier curves for incident cardiovascular events in the (A) positive versus the negative PhenoAgeAccel groups; and (B) different risk levels based on the Framingham Risk Score.

Discussion

Several biological aging parameters have been linked to chronic diseases, including CVD. While previous studies briefly noted the association between PhenoAgeAccel and CVD, this study provides deeper insight into the relationship between PhenoAge, PhenoAgeAccel, and incident CVD, using a longitudinal analysis of 114,517 participants from the UK Biobank. We also compared these findings to the FRS as a reference.

Both higher PhenoAge and a positive PhenoAgeAccel were associated with increased CVD risk (adjusted HR 1.2, p < 0.001), reflected in the higher incidence (44.8% vs. 33.1%). These findings align with the understanding that individuals with faster biological aging may experience higher CVD risk. Although differences in PhenoAge between FRS categories were modest (0.3–2.2 years), individuals with negative PhenoAgeAccel accounted for ≥ 60% of each FRS risk category. However, the proportion of those with positive PhenoAgeAccel increased as FRS risk level rose, suggesting that PhenoAgeAccel could enhance the identification of individuals at elevated risk, refining predictions beyond traditional models like FRS.

When evaluating model discrimination, incorporating PhenoAgeAccel improved the C-index from 0.670 to 0.674 (p < 0.001) compared to models based solely on established cardiovascular risk factors. Although the FRS model demonstrated a higher C-index (0.697), the difference (0.022) was statistically significant (p < 0.001), reflecting the relative improvement offered by PhenoAgeAccel.

ChronoAge represents linear time, while biological age reflects physiological variation as captured through biochemical markers¹⁶. These markers are influenced by factors such as stress, diet, exercise, and sleep, which may introduce some short-term variability^17–19. Unlike ChronoAge, which primarily reflects chronological time, PhenoAge incorporates additional markers of biological aging, which may enhance the predictive power of traditional risk models. To anchor our analysis, we compared PhenoAge with the well-established FRS model, which is widely used for predicting 10-year cardiovascular risk^20,21. However, as previously noted, FRS has certain limitations, particularly in light of newer models like the pooled cohort Equations and SCORE2, which could provide additional insights^22,23.

We explored the associations between gender, diabetes, and CVD preventive drug use with PhenoAge. Due to exclusion criteria, only 0.3% of participants in our cohort were women, all of whom required antihypertensives, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and insulin, resulting in significantly higher PhenoAge values than the male participants (67.2 vs. 55.8 years, p < 0.001). This limits the generalizability of the findings to women, reflecting the dataset’s structure, where UK Biobank participants are predominantly aged ≥ 45 years, naturally placing many at intermediate risk by default²⁴. Additionally, analysis of CVD preventive medications revealed that participants using all three drug types had the highest CVD risk and PhenoAge, possibly reflecting confounding by indication or medication nonadherence, given the lack of detailed data on medication usage patterns in the UK Biobank.

Consistent with previous studies, diabetes was strongly linked to accelerated biological aging^25,26. In our cohort, individuals with diabetes had PhenoAge values 10 years older than those without diabetes (65.3 vs. 55.2 years), while their ChronoAge was paradoxically lower (56.4 vs. 60.1 years). Among those with diabetes, 68.3% were in the positive PhenoAgeAccel group, with a CVD incidence rate 1.8 times higher than in those without diabetes (63.9% vs. 35.5%), highlighting the potential of PhenoAgeAccel as a marker for heightened risk in diabetic individuals. This suggests that combining PhenoAge with ChronoAge may offer superior predictive performance over ChronoAge alone, particularly in populations at high cardiovascular risk.

A major strength of this study is the large cohort size, providing robust statistical power. However, limitations include the underrepresentation of women, due to exclusion criteria such as prior ASCVD or cancer, conditions often diagnosed earlier in women. Additionally, the later onset of CVD in women and the baseline age range of the cohort likely contributed to selection bias²⁷. To address sex differences, we included sex as a covariate in all adjusted models and conducted subgroup analyses by sex. However, results for women should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sample size. While comparison with newer models like SCORE2 would have been informative, the retrospective cohort design precluded regional risk stratification²⁸. Furthermore, incomplete follow-up data limited our ability to analyze longitudinal changes in PhenoAge, so only baseline values were used.

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that PhenoAge has strong potential as an adjunct in cardiovascular risk stratification. When incorporated alongside traditional risk factors, such as ChronoAge, PhenoAge may improve personalized risk assessments by capturing more comprehensive biological aging signals. Unlike ChronoAge, which solely reflects chronological time, PhenoAge integrates physiological and biochemical markers, thus offering a more nuanced understanding of an individual’s cardiovascular risk. While PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel should not replace traditional risk factors, they can be valuable components in a broader, more dynamic model of CVD risk prediction. Future research should focus on evaluating how PhenoAge can track treatment effects, monitor risk over time, and be integrated into dynamic, multifactorial models. Moreover, incorporating PhenoAge into electronic health records, alongside emerging tools like epigenetic clocks and AI-driven prediction models, could significantly enhance CVD risk prediction and further support precision medicine in cardiovascular care.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

K.J.S.K.: Data curation, Writing - Original draft preparation, Visualization; Investigation, Software, Methodology, Conceptualization; S.S.X.: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing; H.L.: Writing – Review & Editing, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis; X.L: Writing – Review & Editing; Y.L.: Writing – Review & Editing, Software; B.C.: Writing – Review & Editing; S.T.: Writing – Review & Editing; H.Z.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Data curation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration; S.J.: Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition; J.D.T.: Supervision, Project administration, Writing – Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.

Funding

This study received funding from the Shanghai Academy of Educational Sciences (Grant No: C2021329), the Key Disciplines Construction Project of Pudong Local Health Commission of Shanghai (Grant No: PWZxk2022-01), the Program for Outstanding Medical Academic Leader of Shanghai (Grant No: LJ202202), and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission Project (Grant No: 22dz1202004). Dr. J.S. received grants from the Talent Development Program of Pudong Health Committee Shanghai (Grant No: PWRq2023-19), the Young Medical Talents Training Program of Pudong Hospital affiliated to Fudan University (Grant No: YQ202201), and the Scientific Research Foundation provided by Pudong Hospital affiliated to Fudan University (Grant No: YJYJRC202202). S.T. received grants from the Fudan Zhangjiang Institute Project (Grant No: KP7202109).

Data availability

The data that supported the findings of this study are available from the UK Biobank (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/) and the corresponding author (J.D.T.) upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The UK Biobank has institutional review board approval from the Northwest Multicenter Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. Secondary use of data for present analysis was approved by the Fudan University Pudong Medical Center Institutional Review Board.