MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415973841 · doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100773

Biological age measured by DNA methylation clocks and frailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415973841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jian Hua Tay, Duarte Barros, Weilan Wang, Vanessa Kristina Wazny, Andrea B. Maier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsDNA methylationDNABiological ageDiseaseIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Frailty is an age-related condition characterised by multisystem physiological decline, which increases vulnerability to adverse outcomes. Biomarkers of ageing might identify individuals at risk and enable early interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between DNA methylation-based biological age metrics (eg, DNA methylation age, epigenetic-age acceleration [EAA], and age deviation) and frailty. Methods In a systematic search of six databases (Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science) from Jan 1, 2011, to June 6, 2025, we identified population-based cohort studies reporting associations between DNA methylation age, EAA, or age deviation and frailty from general or disease-specific populations with a control group. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses with Hartung–Knapp adjustments were performed on standardised β coefficients and SEs. Publication bias, influence, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings From 34 437 records screened, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria (17 cross-sectional studies, one longitudinal study, and six studies that were both cross-sectional and longitudinal), encompassing 28 325 participants (14 757 [52·1%] female; median of mean age 65·2 years [IQR 62·2–69·4]). DNA methylation age and age deviation showed no association with frailty. In cross-sectional meta-analyses, higher Hannum EAA (nine studies; n=11 162; standardised β coefficient 0·06 [95% CI 0·02–0·09], I 2 =71·4%), PhenoAge EAA (eight studies; n=10 371; 0·07 [0·03–0·11], I 2 =81·7%), GrimAge EAA (eight studies; n=10 371; 0·11 [0·06–0·15], I 2 =90·5%), and pace of ageing (five studies; n=7895; 0·10 [0·01–0·19], I 2 =91·0%) were significantly associated with higher frailty. In longitudinal meta-analyses, higher GrimAge EAA (five studies; n=6143; 0·02 [0·00–0·05], I 2 =46·0%, p=0·0481) was significantly associated with increases in frailty, whereas PhenoAge EAA and pace of ageing were not significantly associated with frailty. Interpretation Higher GrimAge EAA is consistently associated with higher frailty. Future research should focus on developing and validating DNA methylation clocks that integrate molecular surrogates of health risk and are specifically trained to predict frailty in large, harmonised, longitudinal cohorts, enabling their translation into clinical practice. Funding National University of Singapore.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Healthy LongevitySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207