The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
my personal um intuition is that the clocks so i would call that more of a general aging clock a putative agent clock i guess i should say that the the the putative aging clocks that incorporate things beyond epigenetics are much more likely to actually work in a useful way in humans
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
i would agree with you about the the epigenetic marks like methylation specifically i i'm a little bit more optimistic that you can create the kind of more more broad aging clock or aging signature
i think you run the risk with the epigenetic clocks that you're only informing on a subset of the biological aging processes and if you look more broadly you're much more likely to get a holistic picture at the whole individual level