The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
DunedinPACE clock (a next generation clock measuring the speed of aging) stands out here by being always either in agreement with a majority of the remaining clocks, or uniquely detecting a change in biological age, where no other clock did.
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.
For the longevity field, aging clocks that can detect changes in biological age in healthy people are of particular value.
Three clocks showed significant effect detection in studies on healthy cohorts, including DunedinPACE, while also being significant in disease studies. The GrimAge clock, geared for predicting mortality, also showed efficiency in both contexts.
The DunedinPACE clock (a next generation clock measuring the speed of aging) stands out here by being always either in agreement with a majority of the remaining clocks, or uniquely detecting a change in biological age, where no other clock did.
This is true but not because all the clocks are poor. It is because they have been trained to capture different things. Some have been trained to predict chronologic age. This is called a first generation clock and these clocks are universally recognized as inferior to clocks trained on biological information. New clocks are being created every day and these clocks are getting better at predicting outcomes of aging. DunedinPACE was designed to capture the signal of biological age over time.
Older clocks were highly variable because they didn't include features like immune deconvolution and principal component analysis which increase precision [3]. Clocks are now very precise and there is less than a 0.5% variation of results if you test the same sample. Current DNAm clocks, especially the DunedinPACE, are actually relatively resistant to large changes.
3rd Generation (DunedinPACE): the first to track the aging outcomes of participants across their lifespan based on data from the same individuals from the age 3 to age 51. This is the technology we use. Advantages of DunedinPACE: 1. Rules out noise in the data due to environmental exposures resulting from people living though different times and in various places. 2. Instead of reporting biological age, or time to death, DunedinPACE reports the speed of aging which makes it very responsive to interventions and ideal for evaluating them with minimal lag and turnover time.
Experimentally, DunedinPACE has been shown as the best predictor of mortality, and age related decline compared to earlier clocks.
DunedinPACE clock (a next generation clock measuring the speed of aging) stood out in comparison to all other 15 aging clocks, by being always either in agreement with a majority of the remaining clocks, or the one uniquely detecting a change in biological age, where no other clock did. Essentially combining reliability and sensitivity.