You are using an outdated browser. For a faster, safer browsing experience, upgrade for free today.

Application of a Multidimensional Biological Age Model for Risk-Oriented Monitoring in Occupational Health Systems

Application of a Multidimensional Biological Age Model for Risk-Oriented Monitoring in Occupational Health Systems

ISSN 2223-6775 Ukrainian journal of occupational health Vol.2, No 1, 2026

https://doi.org/10.33573/ujoh2026.01.079

APPLICATION OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL BIOLOGICAL AGE MODEL FOR RISK-ORIENTED MONITORING IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS

Kashuba M.O., Lototska O.V., Kopach O. Ye., Fedoriv O.Ye., Pasko К.О. Danchyshyn М.В.

Ivan Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine

Full article (PDF), UKR

Introduction. The modern system of periodic medical examinations in occupational medicine is mainly focused on detecting already formed pathology, which limits its effectiveness in early detection of functional changes and disease prevention.

The aim of the research – тo substantiate the use of a multidimensional model of biological age as a tool for risk-oriented monitoring in the system of occupational medicine.

Materials and methods of the research. A conceptual analysis of existing medical monitoring systems was conducted, approaches to assessing biological age and the principles of risk-oriented medicine were integrated.

Results. An approach was proposed that allows detecting early functional deviations, integrating heterogeneous physiological indicators, assessing the dynamics of changes and identifying critical threshold states. The model provides stratification of workers by risk level and increases the validity of decisions regarding professional suitability.

Conclusions. The use of multidimensional models of biological age allows moving from reactive diagnostics to proactive risk management, which increases the effectiveness of preventing occupational diseases.

Key words: biological age, occupational medicine, risk-based approach, functional reserve, medical monitoring, prevention

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global strategy on occupational health for all: the way to health at work. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1995.
  2. International Labour Office. Technical and ethical guidelines for workers’ health surveillance. Geneva: International Labour Office; 1998.
  3. Schulte PA, Pandalai S, Wulsin V, Chun H. Interaction of occupational and personal risk factors in workforce health and safety. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(3):434–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300249
  4. Bell JG, Bishop C, Hartley PS, et al. A systematic approach to health surveillance in the workplace. Occup Med (Lond). 1995;45(6):305–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/45.6.305
  5. Kauppinen T, Toikkanen J. Work and health country profiles. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25 Suppl 4:61–7.
  6. Serra C, Rodríguez MC, Delclos GL, et al. Criteria and methods used for workers’ health surveillance in occupational health practice. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(5):304–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.029397
  7. Ronchese F, Boccuni F, Rondinone BM, et al. Occupational health surveillance: new perspectives. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2023;96(8):1203–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-023-02001-7
  8. Leso V, Fontana L, Romano R, et al. Occupational health surveillance in modern workplaces: challenges and perspectives. J Occup Health. 2024;66(1):uiad006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiad006
  9. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
  10. Harrell FE Jr. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7
  11. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0
  12. Levine ME. Modeling the rate of senescence: can estimated biological age predict mortality more accurately than chronological age? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(6):667–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls233
  13. Jylhävä J, Pedersen NL, Hägg S. Biological age predictors. EBioMedicine. 2017;21:29–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.046
  14. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r115
  15. Khoury MJ, Iademarco MF, Riley WT. Precision public health for the era of precision medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(3):398–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.031
  16. Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ. 2006;174(6):801–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351
  17. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
  18. Ferrucci L, Fabbri E. Inflammageing: chronic inflammation in ageing, cardiovascular disease, and frailty. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2018;15(9):505–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0064-2
  19. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2024;47 Suppl 1:S20–S42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-S002
  20. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. Circulation. 2019;139(25):e1082–e1143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625