How should dismech represent an epigenetic clock, given that no ontology term names one and a clock is an estimator rather than an analyte?
KNOWLEDGE GAP
OPEN
knowledge_gap_no_ontology_term_for_epigenetic_clock
Attached to:
DNAm PhenoAge epigenetic clock estimate
Age-Associated Epigenetic Drift
Two problems compound here. The ontology problem is that NCIT, the vocabulary dismech binds biomarkers to, has no term for an epigenetic clock or for biological age, so the single most important class of aging biomarker cannot be bound to what it actually is. The interim binding used here names the assay and carries the clock in free text, which validates but does not make the concept queryable. The representational problem is deeper: a clock is a penalized regression over hundreds of CpG sites whose output is an age estimate in years. Nothing about that is an analyte, and the same objection applies to the frailty index, to composite biomarker panels, and to the multimorbidity count. dismech represents mechanisms and analytes well and represents estimators over them not at all. Deciding this properly means either extending the schema or accepting that clocks live in computational_models with a link back to the mechanism node. It is filed in the decision register as "Computed indices and composite endpoints in aging biology" (docs/explanation/design-decisions.md section 12), which separates the computed-index problem from the composite-endpoint one and lists three candidate shapes; consult it rather than settling this ad hoc when adding the next clock.