Methodology
We organize biological age tests and research methods to help you understand what is available and how different approaches compare. Our classification system balances scientific accuracy with practical usefulness.
We are systematically reviewing our method taxonomy based on peer-reviewed evidence. This review addresses the observation that categories in the biological age testing space sometimes conflate vendor marketing terms with underlying scientific approaches.
Any restructuring will be conservative and evidence-based rather than theoretically elegant. We prefer maintaining a taxonomy that is useful and accurate over one that is comprehensive but speculative.
We assess whether distinct biological input types — such as epigenetic marks, glycans, proteomics, transcriptomics, microbiome composition, telomere length, medical imaging, and immune markers — warrant separate taxonomic treatment based on their validation evidence and mechanistic differences.
We are developing operational definitions for method maturity levels that align with standard scientific validation criteria, including sample sizes, independent replication, and outcome prediction accuracy.
We examine how to better distinguish between underlying scientific approaches and how they are packaged commercially. A single scientific method family may be marketed under many brand names.
Any taxonomy changes require meeting all of the following criteria before implementation.
Our existing taxonomy reflects the biological age testing landscape as of our initial research. As the field evolves and validation evidence accumulates, periodic review ensures our classifications remain scientifically grounded and useful for consumers.
Biological age methods vary significantly in validation maturity. Independent validation is critical for method assessment, and our taxonomy aims to reflect these evidence differences clearly.