ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage2026
Borderline acceleration in blood epigenetic age of unclear biological importance in knee osteoarthritis progression: Specimens and data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative and Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- WTAP-Mediated mAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
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
objectiveAging is a strong risk factor for osteoarthritis (OA). Previous studies have not found accelerated blood epigenetic aging in OA patients generally. The goal of this study was to evaluate peripheral blood epigenetic aging rates among OA patient subgroups.
methodsGenome-wide baseline blood DNA methylation data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (n = 554) and Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project (n = 128) were generated using Illumina MethylationEPICv1 arrays on baseline samples of OA progressors (radiographic and/or pain progression in 2-5 years) vs. non-progressors. Epigenetic age was calculated using Horvath, GrimAge, PhenoAge, Horvath-IEAA, Hannum, Horvath-SkinBlood, and DunedinPACE calculators and epigenetic age acceleration was compared. Age-associated proteins were imputed using GrimAge and generalized logistic models developed to differentiate progressor groups.
resultsBorderline epigenetic age acceleration was found among radiographic progressors using the SkinBlood calculator (difference in epigenetic age acceleration, ΔEAA=1.5 years, q = 0.02), dual progressors (pain+radiographic) (ΔEAA = 1.2y, q = 0.05) and any progressor (pain+radiographic+dual) (ΔEAA = 1.1y, q = 0.02), although this was less than the reported error of the calculator (2.5 years). Radiographic progressors also exhibited accelerated epigenetic aging using the PhenoAge calculator (ΔEAA = 2.1y, q = 0.02). Imputed age protein-based models showed marginal performance for radiographic progression (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.63) and poor performance for other progressor types (pain AUC=0.54, dual AUC=0.52, any AUC = 0.57). Proteins chosen most frequently during modeling had prior links to OA (i.e., GDF8, MATN3, and interleukin 18).
conclusionsNo meaningful difference in epigenetic age was seen among radiographic OA using 5 of 7 aging calculators, with minimal and likely not-clinically-relevant epigenetic age acceleration using the SkinBlood and PhenoAge calculators.
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.