ReviewBiogerontology2023
An evaluation of aging measures: from biomarkers to clocks.
Review in Biogerontology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Corneal Nerve Fiber Morphology and Biological Age in Healthy Adults.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Characterizing age-related features for assessing biological age and characteristics in Xinjiang Brown cattle.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- There Are Multiple Clocks That Time Us: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations Among 14 Alternative Indicators of Age and Aging.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025Article
- Explainable machine learning framework for biomarker discovery by combining biological age and frailty prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Genetic and environmental determinants of bone quality: a cross-sectional analysis of the Hungarian Twin Registry.GeroScience · 2024Article
- Geroscience in the continuum from healthy longevity to frailty.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2024Review
- Biological Age in Congenital Heart Disease-Exploring the Ticking Clock.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing number of aged population and growing burden of healthy aging demands, a rational standard for evaluation aging is in urgent need. The advancement of medical testing technology and the prospering of artificial intelligence make it possible to evaluate the biological status of aging from a more comprehensive view. In this review, we introduced common aging biomarkers and concluded several famous aging clocks. Aging biomarkers reflect changes in the organism at a molecular or cellular level over time while aging clocks tend to be more of a generalization of the overall state of the organism. We expect to construct a framework for aging evaluation measurement from both micro and macro perspectives. Especially, population-specific aging clocks and multi-omics aging clocks may better fit the demands to evaluate aging in a comprehensive and multidimensional manner and make a detailed classification to represent different aging rates at tissue/organ levels. This framework will promisingly provide a crucial basis for disease diagnosis and intervention assessment in geroscience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.