I make no comment as to whether this particular clock system is any good, but I uploaded my last set of biomarkers. Sadly it cannot calculate BUN from the UK biomarkers.
Next page won’t print properly. Here is the scrape:
Your blood test results indicate that your biological age is 46.3 years, which is significantly younger than your chronological age of 66 years, with a delta of -19.7 years. This is a positive indicator suggesting that your overall health markers are better than what is typical for your chronological age. Let’s go through your results:
Platelet Count (130 10⁹/L): This is slightly below the normal range, which typically starts around 150 10⁹/L. A lower platelet count can sometimes be a concern because platelets are crucial for blood clotting. It may be worth discussing this with a healthcare provider to rule out any underlying issues.
Mean Cell Volume (95.1 fl): This is within a typical range, indicating that the size of your red blood cells is normal.
Lymphocyte Count (0.72 10⁹/L): This is on the lower end of the normal range. Lymphocytes are important for your immune system, so maintaining a balanced diet and regular exercise can help support your immune health.
Monocytes (0.28 10⁹/L): This is within the normal range, indicating a normal level of these white blood cells, which are part of your body’s defense against infections.
RBC Count (4.26 10¹²/L): This is in the normal range, suggesting that your body is producing a healthy number of red blood cells.
Potassium (4.61 mmol/l): This is a normal value, essential for nerve and muscle function.
Creatinine (82.2 µmol/l): This is a normal level, indicating good kidney function.
Alanine Aminotransferase (13.1 U/l): This is a normal value, suggesting healthy liver function.
Alkaline Phosphatase (47 U/l): This is slightly on the lower end of the normal range, but not necessarily concerning on its own.
Glycohemoglobin (32.68 mmol/mol): This corresponds to a normal HbA1c level, indicating good long-term blood glucose control.
Glucose (5.1 mmol/l): This is a normal fasting blood sugar level.
Overall, your results are quite good, especially given the significantly younger biological age. The key point to monitor would be the lower platelet count, and it might be worthwhile to discuss this with a healthcare professional. As always, keep in mind that this information is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Keep up with a healthy lifestyle, and you are on a great path!
I took a large dose of rapamycin on 20th March which will be affecting HbA1c, Glucose, WBC, Lipids, RBC, Platelets still on Monday 30th March (the date of the blood test.)
I like the fact that it has a go at age without being told your age, but I am not sure they have sufficient data to get this right.
I went in again and it gave a different age for the same biomarkers. That implies it is training on data that goes in. I have no issue with that, but it means that it is not that reliable.
These biological age metrics, including epigenetic clocks and telomere measurements, are often designed to cater to the desire to stay young. Their reliability, however, is significantly lower than that of basic models built on chronological age, gender, and lifestyle habits—a point I previously analyzed in another thread regarding epigenetic clocks.
While pleasing, I suppose, I found their age calculation too generous. On the other hand, those of us who have made it into the eighth decade and beyond know that dimensions of aging do not move in concert and interday variability seems to grow.
I did like the fact that chronological age is not an input into their model.
Yes. I recently read a report that insurance actuaries continue to use “classical modeling” for predicting lifespan even though they have CBC and chemistry data available for tens of millions of policy holders. Given the amount of money involved, it is reasonable to think they have experimented and continue to experiment with these bio-models but it is also reasonable to think that the underwriters would shift to one of these models if it could increase accuracy by even a tiny fraction of a percent.
When I get my new annual comprehensive blood tests, I have been dropping my report into OpenAgeAI to see how I compares with previous years. It is has been an informative process to drop a dozen old annual reports into the system to see how it compares with my subjective sense of health and again. Overall, it isn’t bad and has led to a couple of interesting explorations. It is interesting to note that the model using fewer predictors turn in slightly better statistics.
The code is open source and the basic and advanced models are available to run in Python.
When applied to my tests, I have only one negative observation. As I mentioned some time ago, the biological age assignment seems a little too generous in spite of its norming – my impression only. The LLM that supports your test results is pretty basic but you can take the findings elsewhere.
I don’t put much stock in BioAge calculators as age or lifespan predictors but year to year tracking can be useful.