ArticleClinical epigenetics2026
Later-generation epigenetic aging clocks outperform first-generation models in predicting survival in TCGA breast cancer.
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpigenetic aging bridges the gap between biological and chronological age by exploiting DNA methylation (DNAm) patterns. Over the past decade, successive DNAm-based clocks have been introduced, beginning with the first-generation Horvath and Hannum models and extending to second-generation PhenoAge and the GrimAge family; complementary measures include DNAm-estimated telomere length and mitotic indices such as epiTOC/pcgtAge. We previously conducted a side-by-side evaluation of these metrics in colorectal cancer using publicly available data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) COAD and READ cohorts, but an equally systematic assessment in breast cancer has been lacking.
resultHere, using TCGA-BRCA tumor methylomes linked to clinical data (analytic n = 781), we compared seven metrics (Horvath, Hannum, PhenoAge, GrimAge1, GrimAge2, epiTOC/pcgtAge, DNAmTL) via Kaplan-Meier grouping (median and tertiles) and Cox models adjusted for menopausal status, age at diagnosis, receptor subtype, stage, race, and ethnicity, with overall survival truncated at 4000 days. Our analysis reproduced expected benchmark patterns: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) had the worst outcomes, Luminal A the best, and higher stage and older age predicted poorer survival, supporting analytic validity. We found first-generation clocks did not separate survival, whereas PhenoAge and GrimAge2 stratified outcomes; in multivariable analyses, only GrimAge1 provided independent prognostic information. DNAmTL was inversely associated with mortality in univariate models, and epiTOC stratified tertiles but showed wide, nonsignificant Cox estimates.
conclusionsSecond-generation clocks demonstrated stronger prognostic signal than first-generation models in unadjusted analyses. Among them, GrimAge1 retained independent prognostic value beyond established clinicopathologic factors in breast cancer, supporting further external validation with richer covariates to refine clinical utility.
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.