4 ms·

They probably are the most accurate way, but that still doesn't make them good. If there haven't been any recent breakthroughs I missed, then we are talking abo

by V__ 2y ago

They probably are the most accurate way, but that still doesn't make them good. If there haven't been any recent breakthroughs I missed, then we are talking about getting it right +/- 4 years under ideal conditions. Repeating these test on the same subjects can result in fluctuations of 8 to 12 years [1]. Additionally, there are a lot of biotech/junk studies claiming some new intervention reduces/reverses biologic age using these epigenetic clocks as evidence. Making me very wary of the whole thing, though unfairly to those actually doing sound studies I admit. [1] https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-01293-9 https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/article...

kkoncevicius 2y ago
I think we mostly agree. If you are interested, there are developments that reduce the fluctuations of clock predictions - like principal component based clocks [1], where the authors claim average difference between replicate measurements of 1.5 years. And the study you are citing (8 to 12 year errors) - seems to report maximum errors, not averages. These might be caused by poor quality samples, so it's unfair to report it like that. Also the publication under discussion (epigenetic age oscillates) would answer where the fluctuations observed by the article you linked to come from - part of them are of course technical due to measurement error, but part of them are influenced by differences in sample collection times. I also share your skepticism about intervention research and using "biological clocks" to measure how healthy you are. Curiously chronological clocks seem to not be easily affected by interventions. And I would guess this is why most people doing epigenetic aging for sport use biological clocks (like DunedinPACE). But then the question - if you are younger according to "biological age", but we still can measure your true chronological age accurately - are you actually younger in a meaningful sense. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-022-00248-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-022-00248-2
- V__ 2y ago
  Thanks for the link, that would be a great improvment. I really hope they get their someday.

by V__ 2y ago

kkoncevicius 2y ago

I think we mostly agree. If you are interested, there are developments that reduce the fluctuations of clock predictions - like principal component based clocks [1], where the authors claim average difference between replicate measurements of 1.5 years. And the study you are citing (8 to 12 year errors) - seems to report maximum errors, not averages. These might be caused by poor quality samples, so it's unfair to report it like that. Also the publication under discussion (epigenetic age oscillates) would answer where the fluctuations observed by the article you linked to come from - part of them are of course technical due to measurement error, but part of them are influenced by differences in sample collection times. I also share your skepticism about intervention research and using "biological clocks" to measure how healthy you are. Curiously chronological clocks seem to not be easily affected by interventions. And I would guess this is why most people doing epigenetic aging for sport use biological clocks (like DunedinPACE). But then the question - if you are younger according to "biological age", but we still can measure your true chronological age accurately - are you actually younger in a meaningful sense. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-022-00248-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-022-00248-2

V__ 2y ago
Thanks for the link, that would be a great improvment. I really hope they get their someday.