ReviewEpigenomics2025
Insights to aging prediction with AI based epigenetic clocks.
Review in Epigenomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of senescence-related genes as diagnostic biomarkers for gastric cancer using bioinformatics and machine learning.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- The Molecular Exposome of Visible Age Reversal: From Organ-Skin Axes to Regenerative Aesthetics.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Future of Epigenetics: Emerging Technologies and Clinical Applications.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2026Review
- Epigenetic Clocks, Resilience, and Multi-Omics Ageing: A Review and the EpiAge-R Conceptual Framework.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- RNA 5-Methylcytosine Modification in Myocardial Fibrosis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The social context of educational effort - implications for psychological and physiological health in adolescence.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past century, human lifespan has increased remarkably, yet the inevitability of aging persists. The disparity between biological age, which reflects pathological deterioration and disease, and chronological age, indicative of normal aging, has driven prior research focused on identifying mechanisms that could inform interventions to reverse excessive age-related deterioration and reduce morbidity and mortality. DNA methylation has emerged as an important predictor of age, leading to the development of epigenetic clocks that quantify the extent of pathological deterioration beyond what is typically expected for a given age. Machine learning technologies offer promising avenues to enhance our understanding of the biological mechanisms governing aging by further elucidating the gap between biological and chronological ages. This perspective article examines current algorithmic approaches to epigenetic clocks, explores the use of machine learning for age estimation from DNA methylation, and discusses how refining the interpretation of ML methods and tailoring their inferences for specific patient populations and cell types can amplify the utility of these technologies in age prediction. By harnessing insights from machine learning, we are well-positioned to effectively adapt, customize and personalize interventions aimed at aging.
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.