ReviewBiogerontology2026
From the lab to lifestyle: epigenetic clocks in personalized aging and health.
Review in Biogerontology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aging is a complex biological process characterized by progressive functional decline and increased risk of chronic diseases. In recent years, DNA methylation-based epigenetic clocks have emerged as some of the most robust biomarkers for estimating biological age. Initial research clocks, such as those developed by Horvath and Hannum, provided highly accurate chronological age predictions. Subsequent models, including PhenoAge, GrimAge, and DunedinPACE, improved upon this by incorporating health-related variables and functional measures, expanding their relevance to disease risk and pace of aging. Importantly, these multi-CpG clocks have demonstrated strong predictive accuracy, but their reliance on large numbers of CpG sites and high-throughput technologies limits their clinical scalability due to cost, complexity, and sample processing requirements. In this review, we critically evaluate the current landscape research-based epigenetic clocks, and their transition into direct-to-consumer testing. We discuss their key strengths, limitations, and translational potential, with particular emphasis on the growing demand for simplified, cost-effective, and analytically accessible epigenetic clocks, which should maintain predictive accuracy while enabling broader implementation in clinical and epidemiological settings. Special attention is given to ELOVL2-based clocks, which exemplify minimalistic yet robust models that can facilitate large-scale studies and democratize access to biological aging assessment. Ultimately, we argue that the next generation of epigenetic clocks should prioritize both analytical simplicity and validation across diverse populations to support personalized interventions for healthy 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.