I tend to disagree. We actually can measure the biological age. There are clinical biomarkers for that. It is not commonly done. The best one, epigenetic signa

I tend to disagree. We actually can measure the biological age. There are clinical biomarkers for that. It is not commonly done. The best one, epigenetic signature, is yet to be clinically approved or widely available. Now, in that paper, they use broad range of age as a descriptor, confounding many age-associated phenotype and genotypes, which also translate into risk factors. You can definitely say that the 18-34 cohort is different 45-54, and that the later as more risk factors, the same a specific mutation might be associated with higher or even guaranteed chance of developing a disease, and hence will be use as a biomarker. That being said, it is not typical to measure the biological age of healthy individuals. Actually, we don't know what an healthy individual is. We know a great deal more about diseased individuals. The current status seems to be that if you are not diseased you are healthy. I don't agree with that. That's how science is done. And that is how we end up with half-baked studies in one of the most impactful journal .