A new test called CheekAge has been developed to measure biological age using cells from the inside surface of the cheek. This test has shown promising results in predicting the risk of death within the next year, according to a study published in the journal Frontiers in Aging. The study found a strong association between CheekAge and the risk of death from any cause in a group of adults aged 69 to 101.
CheekAge is classified as an epigenetic clock, which evaluates a person’s biological age by analyzing patterns of chemicals attached to their DNA. Researchers hope that tools like CheekAge can help individuals slow down or prevent biological aging in the long run. However, at present, these tools cannot provide specific guidance on how to achieve this goal.
Epigenetic clocks, including CheekAge, use DNA methylation as a marker to assess aging in various tissues and make predictions about a person’s risk of death and age-related diseases. CheekAge was trained using cheek swabs from individuals aged 18 to 93, linking patterns of DNA methylation to overall health scores based on factors such as stress levels, education, and body mass index (BMI).
The study involved analyzing data from the Lothian Birth Cohorts, a research program tracking aging in participants from childhood to adulthood. By examining changes in DNA methylation patterns, researchers were able to determine the correlation between CheekAge and the risk of death. Despite being trained on cheek samples, CheekAge showed a strong link to mortality data derived from blood samples, indicating its potential for predicting individuals’ risk of death.
While CheekAge has shown promise in estimating the risk of death, further research is needed to assess its ability to predict other health outcomes, such as age-related diseases. The primary goal of developing epigenetic clocks like CheekAge is to identify interventions that can slow down or influence aging mechanisms. However, these tests do not currently recommend specific treatments, and caution should be exercised when interpreting the results.
Commercial epigenetic-clock tests like CheekAge and the TallyAge Test should be approached with care due to a lack of standardization and the potential for misinterpretation. These tests can be moderately useful in tracking behavioral changes related to physical activity and diet, but they do not provide specific guidance on actions to take based on the results.
In conclusion, while CheekAge shows promise in predicting mortality risk based on biological age, further research is needed to validate its effectiveness in predicting other health outcomes. As the field of epigenetic clocks continues to evolve, it is essential to approach these tests with caution and consult healthcare professionals for guidance on interpreting the results.