7 replies to this topic

[Michael Lustgarten]

Attached Files

•  grim thumb.png   478.3KB   0 downloads

[albedo]

OK it is N=1 experiment (from an expert: Matt Kaeberlein), but result is definitely not good! Use all these clocks with caution!

 

 min 14:09 on ..https://www.youtube....h?v=hySlWn0f9m8 ...

 

 Screenshot 2025-05-31 212133.png   604.62KB   0 downloads

Edited by albedo, 31 May 2025 - 08:14 PM.

[Michael Lustgarten]

OK it is N=1 (from an expert: Matt Kaeberlein) experiment, but definitely not good! Use all these clocks with caution!

 

 min 14:09 on ..https://www.youtube....h?v=hySlWn0f9m8 ...

 

Screenshot 2025-05-31 212133.png

 

As shown in the video, all epigenetic clocks are not the same for their association with all-cause mortality risk. Some of the clocks that Matt discussed haven't been compared like that

Even with his criticism, I prefer to measure the actual biomarkers underlying the epigenetic clocks, which is discussed in the video, too...
 

[albedo]

As shown in the video, all epigenetic clocks are not the same for their association with all-cause mortality risk. Some of the clocks that Matt discussed haven't been compared like that

Even with his criticism, I prefer to measure the actual biomarkers underlying the epigenetic clocks, which is discussed in the video, too...
 

 

"...prefer to measure the actual biomarkers underlying the epigenetic clocks..." fair point, thank you.

[albedo]

From Gladyschev's team. Still in preprint. I think it is an important way forward technically and might be a tip for one of your next nice videos to consider. I expect you have seen this already, sorry ... ;-)

 

High-dimensional Ageome Representations of Biological Aging across Functional Modules

https://www.biorxiv.....09.17.613599v1

 

"...When applied to human cohorts, Ageome demonstrated het32erogeneity in predictive power for mortality risk, and some modules showed better performance 33 in predicting the onset of age-related diseases, especially cancer, compared to existing clocks..."

 

(BTW, will you happen to be in a coming aging conference when one can meet?)

Edited by albedo, 03 June 2025 - 06:35 AM.

[Michael Lustgarten]

From Gladyschev's team. Still in preprint. I think it is an important way forward technically and might be a tip for one of your next nice videos to consider. I expect you have seen this already, sorry ... ;-)

 

High-dimensional Ageome Representations of Biological Aging across Functional Modules

https://www.biorxiv.....09.17.613599v1

 

"...When applied to human cohorts, Ageome demonstrated het32erogeneity in predictive power for mortality risk, and some modules showed better performance 33 in predicting the onset of age-related diseases, especially cancer, compared to existing clocks..."

 

(BTW, will you happen to be in a coming aging conference when one can meet?)

My take-home message:

"Ageome consistently matched the predictive power of GrimAgeV2 and PhenoAge across the examined disease categories."

[albedo]

Rather for healthspan than mortality and lifespan I guess and I recollect you have been using the original clock from the Dunedin Study. Maybe you have  comment on this new study from Belsky et al 

 

https://www.publiche...an-older-people

 

"...Pace of Aging was examined in 19,045 participants who contributed data over 2006-2016, with additional follow-up to determine disease, disability, and mortality through 2022. In the US study, Pace of Aging was measured from C-reactive protein (CRP), Cystatin-C, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), diastolic blood pressure, waist circumference, lung capacity (peak flow), balance, grip strength, and gait speed..."

[Michael Lustgarten]

Hi albedo, I'm a big fan of the Belsky lab. This isn't an epigenetic clock, but instead measures actual biomarkers (not their epigenetic prediction:

"Three blood biomarkers (HbA1c, CRP and cystatin-C), three physical assessments (diastolic blood pressure, peak-flow lung-function testing and waist circumference), and three functional tests (gait speed, balance and grip strength)"

I don't like the inclusion of DBP, as it follows an inverse U-shape during aging, which may confound their results. For example, how would we know if low DBP at older ages is aged, or youthful? Including SBP helps clarify that, but SBP wasn't included.

It covers multiple organ systems, but where are liver function biomarkers and RBCs (the most abundant human cell type)? If we're really aiming for a great clock, sight and hearing could be included...