Press Enter to search · Esc to close
A new UK Biobank analysis suggests that how fast you're aging on the inside can amplify the genetic odds of diabetes and heart disease — and measuring both may sharpen the picture.
A new three-country study finds that the biological-age tests longevity fans love track smoking, heavy drinking, and BMI with surprising consistency. The catch? They only budge if your behavior does.
Two 2025 papers move biological-age measurement closer to the clinic — one builds a risk score from routine bloodwork, the other names a druggable target in the aging heart.
A cluster of 2024–2025 papers is dragging biological-age science out of the speculative zone and into the realm of measurable prediction. The signal is real — but so are the caveats.
A new GeroScience analysis argues the machine-learning clocks behind today's biological-age tests optimize for math, not biology — and miss inflammation in the process.
A massive new study suggests your body doesn't age all at once — and a single blood draw might one day map which organs are racing ahead.
A 100,000-person Chinese validation shows phenotypic age scores can predict mortality reasonably well — and reminds us why the consumer versions still overreach.
A new wave of studies is validating molecular age clocks as practical predictors of kidney, cardiovascular and functional health — nudging longevity science out of theory and toward the clinic.
Consumer biological-age tests promise a number that tells you how fast you're aging. A new analysis suggests the signal underneath that number isn't quite what we thought.
A new clinical clock called LinAge2 is trained to predict survival, not just guess your age — a quiet but meaningful shift for anyone paying for an epigenetic age test.