Methods for assessing biological age: relevance, clock types, and clinical significance

Belan K.S., Lemberg K.A., Fatkhutdinov I.R., Antonov K.K., Gryazeva N.V.

1) Atlas Medical Center, Moscow, Russia; 2) Central State Medical Academy of the Administrative Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

Over the past century, humanity has witnessed an unprecedented increase in life expectancy, which has naturally led to global population aging. Paradoxically, despite the impressive achievements of modern medicine, the prevalence of age-related noncommunicable diseases continues to steadily increase. The fundamental goal of longevity medicine interventions is not simply to increase the number of years lived, but to significantly extend the healthy lifespan (Healthspan), slow the rate of biological aging, and improve quality of life, regardless of an individual’s chronological age. In this context, aging biomarkers represent critical tools for achieving these goals. Biological age is considered by the modern scientific community as the most promising integrated indicator combining biomarker signatures and possessing clinical and prognostic significance in longevity medicine. Epigenetic clocks, based on a thorough analysis of DNA methylation patterns, are currently recognized as the gold standard for quantitative assessment of biological age. Among the most thoroughly studied and validated models are the Horvath clock, the Hannum clock, the PhenoAge formula, the GrimAge formula, and the DunedinPACE formula, each with specific advantages in different clinical contexts. At the same time, the dynamics of many biomarkers throughout the life cycle are distinctly nonlinear and exhibit complex patterns of interaction with a nonlinear increase in mortality and the risk of developing age-associated pathologies. Therefore, the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies for multimodal data analysis opens up fundamentally new prospects for the creation of highly accurate and personalized models for assessing biological age. 

For citations: Belan K.S., Lemberg K.A., Fatkhutdinov I.R., Antonov K.K., Gryazeva N.V. Methods for assessing biological age: relevance, clock types, and clinical significance. Pharmateca. 2025;32(10):12-16. (In Russ.). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/pharmateca.2025.10.12-16

Authors’ contribution: Belan K.S. – data collection and analysis, writing. Lemberg K.A. – study concept and design, editing. Fatutdinov I.R. – data collection and processing, visualization. Antonov K.K. – literature analysis, editing. Gryazeva N.V. – scientific supervision, critical revision.
Conflicts of interest: The authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding: The study was conducted without any sponsorship.

Keywords

About the Authors

K.S. Belan, Head of Direction of Preventive Medicine, Atlas Medical Center, Moscow, Russia; kirbelan@gmail.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/-0001-7183-8965 (corresponding author)
K.A. Lemberg, General Director, Atlas Medical Center, Moscow, Russia; lemberg.ka@atlasclinic.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9887-8759
I.R. Fatkhutdinov, Chief Physician, Atlas Medical Center, Moscow, Russia; IR_FATHUTDINOV@protek.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8485-8543
K.K. Antonov, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Head of the Atlas Clinics, Atlas Medical Center, Moscow, Russia; antonov.kk@atlasclinic.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0185-0045
N.V. Gryazeva, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Department of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology, Central State Medical Academy of the Administrative Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia; tynrik@yandex.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3437-5233

Similar Articles