Evidence summary: TruAge™ Test (TruDiagnostic)

TruAge™ Test uses a finger-prick blood sample, which is analysed in a CLIA-certified lab [4]. TruDiagnostic lists an OMICmAge™ biological age, 11 organ-system ages (SYMPHONYAge™), a DunedinPACE™ pace of aging, telomere length, immune-cell and inflammation scores, and other estimates [4]. The product page headline reads: "See how old your body really is — and how fast you're aging." [4]

The lab analyses DNA methylation, a set of chemical marks on DNA, from the finger-prick blood sample [4]. TruDiagnostic describes the ages, pace of aging, immune-cell, inflammation and smoking results as calculated from those marks [4], and its sample report labels the CRP and IL-6 results as methylation levels [18]. The vendor pages we reviewed do not say how the telomere, grip-strength and gait-speed results are derived [4][18]. TruDiagnostic describes its biomarker panel as "Clinical biomarkers — proteins, metabolites and clinical measures — estimated directly from your DNA methylation." [4] These are statistical estimates, not lab measurements of the proteins or metabolites themselves [1][10]. In the OMICmAge paper, even the estimates the authors highlighted correlated only moderately with measured values, and the authors say their accuracy needs further work [10].

TruAge™ Test is currently rated Promising on Compare [1]. The rating concerns the Pace of Aging result, which uses the published DunedinPACE measure; the other reports are discussed below and are not covered by it. This page explains that rating. It does not change it.

• DunedinPACE. This measure was built from 20 years of repeated health measurements in 1,037 people born in Dunedin, New Zealand, in 1972–73 [6]. In other cohorts, faster scores were linked to more disease, disability and death [6]. Our methodology lists DunedinPACE as a measure of the pace of aging, linked to mortality in cohort studies, and notes that each rating concerns a specified endpoint rather than every possible use [2]. The validation in the development paper was carried out by its developers, in cohorts that were mostly of white European ancestry [6]. The inventors licensed the method to a commercial entity [6], and it is licensed exclusively to TruDiagnostic [2][4].
• OMICmAge. A 2026 peer-reviewed paper trained OMICmAge to predict a mortality-risk score built from routine clinical lab results [10]. It was validated in TruDiagnostic's own customer biobank and in Generation Scotland, and it was associated with disease and death [10]. In TruDiagnostic's biobank, made up of customers whom the authors describe as generally healthier, only existing diseases could be analysed [10]. In Generation Scotland, an established clock (PCGrimAge) generally ranked first and OMICmAge second [10]. TruDiagnostic sponsored the work and its employees co-wrote the paper [10]. The validation was carried out by the developers [10].
• Organ-system ages. TruDiagnostic links SYMPHONYAge to Systems Age, a 2025 peer-reviewed method [11]. Its developers trained 11 system scores on two US cohorts and then tested them in separate cohorts [20]. In those tests, the system scores were associated with related diseases and aging measures, and the authors report that they outperformed established whole-body clocks [20]. The developers ran these tests themselves [20]. The authors say "variations" of the scores exist, and we could not confirm which version the report uses [20]. Two of the inventors have received consulting fees from TruDiagnostic [20]. The authors note there is no gold-standard way to assign biomarkers to body systems [20]. A system score is not an organ diagnosis.

Our methodology's Strong tier asks for independent replication across populations and laboratories, open methods and demonstrated value beyond standard risk factors [2]. In the sources we reviewed, the validation of OMICmAge and Systems Age was carried out or funded by their developers [10][20]. For DunedinPACE, research groups with no developer among the authors have linked faster scores to higher mortality in older adults in Germany and, over four years of follow-up, in a US sample weighted to be nationally representative [21][22]. In a third such study, of Finnish women aged 63 to 76, the link weakened and was no longer statistically clear after adjustment for education, lifestyle and chronic disease, and was absent within twin pairs; its authors write that DunedinPACE "may have limited usability among older populations" [23]. These are observational findings in research blood samples, not studies of TruAge's own results. Methods are only partly open: DunedinPACE code is public [6], but some OMICmAge data are restricted for commercial reasons [10]. We also could not confirm which algorithm versions the report uses [20]. Our proposed reading is that these gaps explain why the test sits below Strong under the current criteria. This is our editorial interpretation, not the original rating rationale.

In a two-year randomised trial, 220 adults without obesity were assigned to calorie restriction or their usual diet [16]. A later analysis of stored blood samples found that DunedinPACE slowed slightly on average in the restriction group compared with controls [16]. The effect was small, and individual results overlapped substantially between groups [16]. Two other clocks, PhenoAge and GrimAge, did not change significantly [16]. The authors state that whether this translates into long-term clinical benefit is unknown [16]. This trial did not test buying the TruAge™ Test or using it to guide care [16]. This summary is not a recommendation to restrict calories.

A 2026 study found that many clocks give near-identical results when the same sample is run twice [13]. When small groups had blood drawn several times within hours or days, around events such as a meal, a stress test or travel to altitude, scores varied far more than between repeat runs of one sample [13]. Without control groups, the authors could not tell whether the events or simply the timing of the draws caused this [13]. In this analysis DunedinPACE was technically precise but less stable between draws, while Systems Age and OMICmAge were somewhat more stable [13]. The study was small, mostly involved adults aged 18–27, and used older array versions [13]. Two of its authors are Systems Age co-inventors who have received consulting fees from TruDiagnostic [13]. None of the sources we reviewed sets a threshold for a meaningful change in one person.

A DunedinPACE value of 1 corresponds to the average pace in the cohort it was built from [6]. It is not a lifespan forecast.

These scores show population-level associations with health outcomes [6][10][20]. Experts on aging biomarkers separate whether a measurement is technically reliable, whether it predicts outcomes, and whether using it improves health [9]. The reviewed studies do not show whether using this test to guide decisions improves health. We do not treat this test as a diagnostic tool.

For current price and availability, see Compare. If you spot an error, please tell us.