ArticleEpigenomics2025
From population science to the clinic? Limits of epigenetic clocks as personal biomarkers.
Article in Epigenomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of proteomic aging clocks in a phase 2a clinical trial supports simultaneous geroprotective assessment.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Natural-Product-Derived Antioxidants and DNA Methylation-Based Epigenetic Aging: A Systematic Review of Human Intervention Studies.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Microbiome and aging: Trajectories of microbiome age across human ecosystems and their systemic effects.iMeta · 2026Review
- The aging paradox of Cushing's syndrome: Stress without clear senescence?Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2026Review
- From the lab to lifestyle: epigenetic clocks in personalized aging and health.Biogerontology · 2026Review
- Upskilling in Healthy Longevity Medicine and Its Association With Physicians' Implementation Intent and Self-Reported Clinical Confidence: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epigenetic clocks are machine-learning algorithms which use DNA methylation patterns to predict aging-related phenotypes, such as chronological age, composite indicators of health, time-to-death, and the pace of biological aging. These clocks have been instrumental at the population level in revealing how disease risk emerges from behavioral, environmental, and psychosocial factors, and how certain anti-aging interventions may alter those trajectories. Given the success of epigenetic clocks at the population level, it is reasonable to assume they might also hold value as individual-level biomarkers. We contend, however, that fundamental technical and biological properties of these algorithms prohibit their current use at the individual level. Technical concerns include methods of clock construction, sample collection and processing, data preprocessing, and computational implementations. Biological considerations include the nature of DNA methylation and its dynamics, variation across developmental periods, tissue specificity, and sensitivity to environmental/sociodemographic contexts. We show that clocks fail to meet common standards for clinical utility compared with established biomarkers, and that applying epigenetic clocks in individual-level decision making can be uninformative and potentially harmful. Finally, we argue that even if all technical and biological hurdles can be overcome, epigenetic clocks, as we currently understand them, should not be used to make individual-level decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.