No winners or losers: clinical chemistry-based biological aging metrics perform similarly across cohorts and health outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Aging is the leading risk factor for most chronic disease. However, disease risk varies substantially between individuals of the same age. Biological aging measures attempt to quantify this difference using biomarkers; such measures have amassed substantial evidence as reliable correlates of morbidity and mortality. Although many have been developed throughout the years, there is no clear consensus as to which one is the best, if any. This study evaluates four methods for measuring biological aging: Klemera and Doubal's method for biological age (KDM BA), phenotypic age (PA), homeostatic dysregulation (DM), and Pace of Aging (Pace). Using five cohort studies from four different countries (InCHIANTI from Italy, WHAS I and II from the United States, NuAge from Canada, and the UK Biobank), we

SUBMITTER: Provost G 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC12501105 | biostudies-literature | 2025 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature