Corrected training-target and repeatability wording across three existing aging-clock guides.
Why aging clocks disagree now describes health-risk clocks as trained on health measures and survival data rather than directly on mortality and disease outcomes. It explains the PhenoAge training target more precisely and identifies age-prediction clocks as the comparison in its population-level health-risk description.
How often should you test? and The limitations of aging clocks no longer present a same-sample repeatability figure as a sufficient yardstick for changes between tests. They distinguish one sample measured twice from separate samples taken hours or days apart, and explain that the former covers only part of the variation between results. The testing-frequency guide also makes clear that readings can move over short intervals.
The limitations guide removes wording that called a laboratory reference range a clear signal of improvement or deterioration. Source lists on both repeatability guides now disclose relevant commercial ties of the reliability-study authors.
Earlier wording overstated the training targets and could make technical repeatability sound sufficient to judge a change between separate tests.
These corrections narrow interpretation without changing catalog ratings. They do not establish a meaningful personal-change threshold, an optimal retesting interval or a health benefit from a lower clock score.
Affected entities
Primary
- learn articleWhy aging clocks disagree
Secondary