3 ms·
I guess maybe I'm one of the few who consider "reversing 3.1 biological years" to be a personal insult. Something that polled well in a group of pre-kindergart
by HocusLocus 1y ago
I guess maybe I'm one of the few who consider "reversing 3.1 biological years" to be a personal insult. Something that polled well in a group of pre-kindergarteners. What happened, some statistical bloodwork metric was tortured to produce such a claim? A mouse population survived the lab a little longer?
- tzs 1y agoHere's an article that answers your question [1]. It in the second bullet point near the top. [1] https://trial.medpath.com/news/5c43f09ebb6d0f8e/ozempic-shows-anti-aging-effects-in-first-clinical-trial-reversing-biological-age-by-3-1-years https://trial.medpath.com/news/5c43f09ebb6d0f8e/ozempic-show...
- HocusLocus 1y agoYes, epigenetic clocks discovered in 2010 and even the researcher who discovered them might feel insulted by the phrase of a prescription drug declaring "reverse biological aging 3.1 years"
- aswegs8 1y agoIf you're really interested in that and not just trolling, these are the measures used by the study: After adjustment for sex, BMI, hsCRP, and sCD163, semaglutide significantly decreased epigenetic aging: PCGrimAge (-3.1 years, P = 0.007), GrimAge V1 (-1.4 years, P = 0.02), GrimAge V2 (-2.3 years, P = 0.009), PhenoAge (-4.9 years, P = 0.004), and DunedinPACE (-0.09 units, ≈9 % slower pace, P = 0.01). Semaglutide also lowered the multi-omic OMICmAge clock (-2.2 years, P = 0.009) and the transposable element-focused RetroAge clock (-2.2 years, P = 0.030).