TruDiagnostic

Watch an #agingshort video of this #trendingwithimpact research #paper recently #published, entitled, “Exploring the effects of Dasatinib, Quercetin, and Fisetin on DNA methylation clocks: a longitudinal study on senolytic interventions.” TruDiagnostic Buck Institute for Research on Aging Cornell University https://lnkd.in/gchNwRxW #aging #senolytics #epigenetics #dna #research #researchpaper #openaccess #openscience #peerreview #journal #publication #publishing #trending #meded #video

Direct-to-consumer age clocks give inconsistent answers. Anecdote & analysis: I did TruDiagnostic, Elysium, GlycanAge, & reg blood draw for PhenoAge on same day from same LabCorp venous draw (Elysium's is saliva so I did right before). Chose these 4 clocks as most respected & used now. See comments for details. Not sharing what # f/ what clock but huge range to main age estimates: 20, 40, 50, 55. Bigger spread than expected. 2 gave aging rate & also had big range: 0.77, 0.95. Oddities & details: TruDx's extrinsic & intrinsic ages (see https://lnkd.in/gQqSvXX9) diff'd by 18yrs. Not weird but I didn't expect its main age estimate to be outside this 18yr range. They've now abandoned that report & it's no longer avail. Systems clocks: TruDx just launched a systems aging methylation clock (f/ Yale) inc ability to add to earlier tests. Elysium did same earlier (f/ ?). Elysium's is 9 systems: brain, liver, kidney, heart, blood, hormone, metabolic, & inflammation. TruDx's same lung & musculoskeletal. Both give %iles. System clocks potentially more clinically useful: can suggest areas for conventional dx tests. The 2 systems clocks differed a lot. One's worst system (age61, younger than 12% of others) wasn't bad in other (age49, yng'r than 81% others). One's best (44) was 3rd worst (54) in other. Looking at whether each above/below chrono age they disagree in 5 of 9 w/ 3 disagreeing by 7 yrs. Just as TruDx's main age est not in range of extrinsic-intrinsic, Elysium's main age (on 2 pre2024 tests) wasn't between min & max age of the systems (body-as-whole younger than every system). More TruDx oddity: They report some trad blood biomarkers. I had these tested by LabCorp f/ same venous draw but got very diff #s: Eg HbA1C Labcorp:5.2%, TruDx: 6.2%. 5.2% consistent w/ prior tests & glucose history. More in comments. Summary: Opacity of Elysium's test & participation in community by TruDx team openness on which published clocks they license makes me trust them a bit more but the many oddities & the fact that these don't seem to deal w/ the mix change issue makes me not trust any # much. Not sure how to use GlycanAge vs DNAm clocks when big diffs. I hear GlycanAge mostly measures inflammation but my GlycanAge diff'd a lot vs both systems clocks inflammation age. These tests prob still useful (better than just chrono age) for longitudinal tracking & great they apply new analyses to old tests. I don't trust single #s much nor changes after treatments as meaningful yet. Nor IMO are these ready for competitions/leaderboards. But age clocks underutilized in clinical trials when cohorts big enough to smooth noise. For treat vs ctrl age balancing & post-trial analysis stratified by age, best aging clocks already better than chrono age. Important: See the comments for important discussion about proper use of pace vs point-estimate age clocks.