View

The Study

A Targeted Epigenetic Clock for the Prediction of Biological Age

In simple terms

This study is like taking a picture of many people at one moment in time and comparing their epigenetic 'age markers' to see if they match what we expect from their real age and health conditions. It can show that people with Down syndrome tend to have higher epigenetic age markers, and very old people tend to have lower ones - kind of like how a car's mileage meter might show more or less wear than the actual miles driven. But because it's just a snapshot, we can't prove that these markers actually cause aging or can tell any single person exactly how fast they're aging.

44%

Analysis score

44/ 44

Maximum 44 for a cross-sectional study.

Where the score came from

Reporting0
Methodology81
Publication100
Statistical54
Study type (basis of the score)
Cross-Sectional Study
Level 4 - Case series
What’s the bottom line?

Scientists created a blood test using 6 specific genetic markers (from genes like ELOVL2 and SIRT7) to measure your biological age - how old your body really is, not just your birthday age. They tested it on nearly 1,000 people including healthy adults, people with Down syndrome (who age faster), and supercentenarians (who age slower).

Where does this study sit?

Reviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Reviews of Cohort Studies

Max 85

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Reviews of Case-Control Studies

Max 63

Case-Control Studies

Max 58

Cross-Sectional & Case Series

Max 50

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Cross-Sectional & Case Series
Level 4
44

44 / 100

Quality score

Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.

Cannot establish causation

Save studies & get personalized insights

Create a free account to save this study, track new evidence as it comes in, and get breakdowns of studies in the topics you care about.

Key takeaways

Summary

Based on the study abstract and findings.

  1. 1Yes, this is significant for humans.
  2. 2A 4-year error margin means the test can reasonably estimate biological age, which matters because biological age (not just chronological age) predicts health outcomes and longevity.
  3. 3However, claims of large age reversals (like 8 years) should be viewed skeptically given this error margin.
  4. 4The test matched chronological age very well (89% correlation) with an average error of about 4 years.
  5. 5It correctly showed people with Down syndrome as biologically older, and centenarians as biologically younger than their actual age.

Score breakdown, methodology, conflicts of interest, evidence analysis & raw study data

Publication

Journal

Cells

Year

2022

Authors

Noémie Gensous, C. Sala, C. Pirazzini, F. Ravaioli, M. Milazzo, K. Kwiatkowska, E. Marasco, S. De Fanti, C. Giuliani, Camilla Pellegrini, A. Santoro, M. Capri, S. Salvioli, Daniela S. Monti, G. Castellani, C. Franceschi, M. Bacalini, P. Garagnani

Open Access
30 citations
Analysis v5
Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health studies into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.