They measure AdaptAge more than DamageAge from what Kejun told me…
Lustgarten says “intrinsic component to aging” vs “extrinsic component to aging” but even that I’m unsure about (esp on HannumAge, which seems highly dependent on cell composition [eg % neutrophils])
Whether or not they correlate with extra mortality beyond just years… depends on which study you reference. I’ve seen studies arguing in both directions
We know for sure that they’re less useful than GrimAge/PhenoAge. Someone told me that the CpG sites they measure… mostly don’t do anything aging-relevant… But are they completely useless, given how often they’re used? (and that they’re still a SIGNAL of a more fundamental underlying process that is still happening?)They still say something about the system that cannot completely be ignored…
I mean, if you look at the GrimAge2 paper (and the AdaptAge vs DamageAge papers), you can just see how badly these 1st-generation clocks correspond to any functional outcomes…