Zurbuchen Rebecca, von Däniken Anna, Janka Heidrun, von Wolff Michael, Stute Petra
University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Medical Library, University Library Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Maturitas. 2025 Apr;195:108215. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2025.108215. Epub 2025 Feb 7.
Biological age has long been proposed to complement chronological age because it has the potential to provide a more accurate assessment of someone's ageing process and functional status. At present, there are several methods to determine an individual's biological age through the measurement of biomarkers of ageing. This review compares methods for assessing biological age in adults, analyses biomarkers of ageing, and determines the goals for which biological age can be calculated, in order to help determine a gold standard for measuring biological age. Articles were eligible if studies included a test battery and statistical method to calculate biological age. Literature research included the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. In total, 56 studies were included and the risk of bias in each of them was assessed. The most commonly used methods to assess biological age are Klemera and Doubal's method, principal component analysis, multiple linear regression, PhenoAge and Hochschild's method. Klemera and Doubal's method has proved the most reliable. Apart from using different statistical methods, the difference between the biological ageing scores lies in the choice of biomarkers of ageing, especially the inclusion of chronological age as a biomarker of ageing. Most of the included studies aimed to establish a new biological ageing score or compare biological age to different measurements of functionality of the human body. In conclusion, there is still no consensus on a gold standard and more research on this topic is necessary. Study protocol PROSPERO ID: CRD42021287548.
长期以来,人们一直提议用生物年龄来补充实际年龄,因为它有可能更准确地评估一个人的衰老过程和功能状态。目前,有几种方法可以通过测量衰老生物标志物来确定个体的生物年龄。本综述比较了评估成年人生物年龄的方法,分析了衰老生物标志物,并确定了可以计算生物年龄的目标,以帮助确定测量生物年龄的金标准。如果研究包括一套测试方法和计算生物年龄的统计方法,则这些文章符合要求。文献研究包括Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库。总共纳入了56项研究,并评估了每项研究的偏倚风险。评估生物年龄最常用的方法是克莱梅拉和杜巴尔方法、主成分分析、多元线性回归、PhenoAge和霍希尔德方法。事实证明,克莱梅拉和杜巴尔方法最可靠。除了使用不同的统计方法外,生物衰老评分之间的差异还在于衰老生物标志物的选择,尤其是将实际年龄作为衰老生物标志物。大多数纳入研究旨在建立新的生物衰老评分或比较生物年龄与人体功能的不同测量指标。总之,在金标准方面仍未达成共识,对此主题需要进行更多研究。研究方案PROSPERO编号:CRD42021287548。