ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Biological Age Predictors: The Status Quo and Future Trends.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midlife aging and performance study (MAPS): evaluating biological aging through a physical capacity battery.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Modifiable risk factors associated with increased retinal age gap in an Australian population.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Definition of Sporadic Early-Onset Invasive Solid Organ Cancers in Adults.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Age-Related Human Adaptation to Extreme Climatic Factors and Environmental Conditions.Biology · 2025Article
- Lifetime trauma exposure and accelerated epigenetic aging among midlife women.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2025Article
- Characterizing age-related features for assessing biological age and characteristics in Xinjiang Brown cattle.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Multi-omic analysis of biological aging biomarkers in long-term calorie restriction and endurance exercise practitioners: A cross-sectional study.Aging cell · 2025Article
- Contextualizing aging clocks and properly describing biological age.Aging cell · 2024Article
- Geroscience in the continuum from healthy longevity to frailty.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2024Review
- A Framework for an Effective Healthy Longevity Clinic.Aging and disease · 2024Review
- Health Patterns across Adulthood: An Age-Based Investigation of the Nutritional Status, Homocysteine, and CoQ10 of Bank Staff.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Proteins in scalp hair of preschool children.Psych · 2024Article
- Review
- Dose response of running on blood biomarkers of wellness in generally healthy individuals.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Epigenetic clocks and female fertility timeline: A new approach to an old issue?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no single universal biomarker yet to estimate overall health status and longevity prospects. Moreover, a consensual approach to the very concept of aging and the means of its assessment are yet to be developed. Markers of aging could facilitate effective health control, more accurate life expectancy estimates, and improved health and quality of life. Clinicians routinely use several indicators that could be biomarkers of aging. Duly validated in a large cohort, models based on a combination of these markers could provide a highly accurate assessment of biological age and the pace of aging. Biological aging is a complex characteristic of chronological age (usually), health-to-age concordance, and medically estimated life expectancy. This study is a review of the most promising techniques that could soon be used in routine clinical practice. Two main selection criteria were applied: a sufficient sample size and reliability based on validation. The selected biological age calculators were grouped according to the type of biomarker used: (1) standard clinical and laboratory markers; (2) molecular markers; and (3) epigenetic markers. The most accurate were the calculators, which factored in a variety of biomarkers. Despite their demonstrated effectiveness, most of them require further improvement and cannot yet be considered for use in standard clinical practice. To illustrate their clinical application, we reviewed their use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.