Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715611›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2022

Measuring biological age using omics data.

Jarod Rutledge, Hamilton Oh, Tony Wyss-Coray

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 368 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
368citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

368 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Hallmarks of Aging: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  15. p16GeroScience · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

308 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jarod Rutledge *Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hamilton Oh *Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Tony Wyss-CorayWu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. twc@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5893-0831

Funding

Stanford Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterAdmin Supp: Developing iPSC models for AD and PDP30AG066515 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Lisa Goldman Rosas · 2020 to 2026
$29.0M
Working Memory in Parkinson Disease: A Cognitive & Systems Neuroscience ApproachP50AG047366 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HENDERSON, VICTOR · 2015 to 2019
$7.9M
Molecular signature of parabiosisR01AG072255 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WYSS-CORAY, TONY · 2021 to 2025
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066515NIA NIH HHS P50 AG047366NIA NIH HHS R01 AG072255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Age is the key risk factor for diseases and disabilities of the elderly. Efforts to tackle age-related diseases and increase healthspan have suggested targeting the ageing process itself to 'rejuvenate' physiological functioning. However, achieving this aim requires measures of biological age and rates of ageing at the molecular level. Spurred by recent advances in high-throughput omics technologies, a new generation of tools to measure biological ageing now enables the quantitative characterization of ageing at molecular resolution. Epigenomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic data can be harnessed with machine learning to build 'ageing clocks' with demonstrated capacity to identify new biomarkers of biological ageing.

Indexed as

AgingProteomicsAgedBiomarkersEpigenomicsHumansMetabolomicsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID35715611
PMCPMC10048602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.