Abstract:Biological age is an abstract concept that helps explain how an individual is functionally aging. Given that aging is a remarkably complex and multifarious process, it is infeasible to quantify biological age with a single aging biomarker. Rather than conflating a given metric with biological age, it makes more sense to conceptualize aging biomarkers, such as grip strength, VO2 max, or next‐generation aging clocks, as providing unique insights into different aspects of aging. Usage of the phrase "biological age" has picked up considerably since the advent of aging clocks and it has become commonplace to describe an aging clock's output as biological age. In contrast to this labeling, biological age is also often depicted as a more abstract concept that helps explain how individuals are aging internally, externally, and functionally. Given that the bulk of molecular aging is tissue‐specific and aging itself is a remarkably complex, multifarious process, it is unsurprising that most surveyed scientists agree that aging cannot be quantified via a single metric. We share this sentiment and argue that, just like it would not be reasonable to assume that an individual with an ideal grip strength, VO2 max, or any other aging biomarker is biologically young, we should be careful not to conflate an aging clock with whole‐body biological aging. To address this, we recommend that researchers describe the output of an aging clock based on the type of input data used or the name of the clock itself. Epigenetic aging clocks produce epigenetic age, transcriptomic aging clocks produce transcriptomic age, and so forth. If a clock has a unique name, such as our recently developed epigenetic aging clock CheekAge, the name of the clock can double as the output. As a compromise solution, aging biomarkers can be described as indicators of biological age. We feel that these recommendations will help scientists and the public differentiate between aging biomarkers and the much more elusive concept of biological age.

Contextualizing aging clocks and properly describing biological age

An evaluation of aging measures: from biomarkers to clocks

Comparative analysis of epigenetic aging clocks from CpG characteristics to functional associations

Cell-type specific epigenetic clocks to quantify biological age at cell-type resolution

Many chronological aging clocks can be found throughout the epigenome: Implications for quantifying biological aging

High-dimensional Ageome Representations of Biological Aging across Functional Modules

Assessing the rate of aging to monitor aging itself.

ComputAgeBench: Epigenetic Aging Clocks Benchmark

Eleven Telomere, Epigenetic Clock, and Biomarker-Composite Quantifications of Biological Aging: Do They Measure the Same Thing?

There are multiple clocks that time us: Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations among 14 alternative indicators of age and aging

Biological Clocks: Why We Need Them, Why We Cannot Trust Them, How They Might Be Improved

Comprehensive Insights from Molecular Targets and Biomarkers to Biological Clocks

A process framework for the systematic evaluation and diffusion of reuse methods

When to Trust Epigenetic Clocks: Avoiding False Positives in Aging Interventions.

Biohorology and biomarkers of aging: Current state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities

The Ticking of Aging Clocks.

Next Generation Aging Clock: A Novel Approach to Decoding Human Aging Through Over 3000 Cellular Pathways

Epigenetic aging: Biological age prediction and informing a mechanistic theory of aging

Determination of Biological Age: Geriatric Assessment vs Biological Biomarkers

Biomarkers of aging in real life: three questions on aging and the comprehensive geriatric assessment

Measuring biological age using omics data