ReviewThe Journal of clinical investigation2026
Functional, molecular, and digital measurements of biological age.
Review in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reality of an aging population demands a deeper understanding of aging as a biological process, rather than as a chronological descriptor. Chronological age poorly captures interindividual heterogeneity in physiological and functional decline, disease susceptibility, and mortality risk. In contrast, biological age encompasses deterioration at the molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, functional, and organismal levels and provides insight into why two individuals with the same chronological age exhibit differences in physiological function, disease susceptibility, and mortality risk. While early models of biological age relied on functional markers or composite scores derived largely from longitudinal cohort studies, more recent models integrate molecular profiling with machine learning to ascertain biological aging trajectories. In parallel, new artificial intelligence tools have been applied to various imaging modalities and other forms of complex data to elucidate latent patterns and estimate biological age. In this state-of-the-art Review, we explore historical and modern approaches to estimating biological age and highlight key conceptual, technical, and translational challenges that remain unresolved. As geroscience-guided interventions are incorporated into clinical evaluations, robust and accurate interpretable measures of biological aging are crucial to ascertain treatment effects in clinical trials.
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.