Skip to content
Open access · OA via Europe PMC

Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of sixteen markers of biological aging from the Berlin Aging Study II.

Vetter VM, Drewelies J, Homann J, Düzel S, Deecke L, Jawinski P, Kühn S, Kubala E, Markett S, Mülleder M, Ralser M, Lindenberger U, Lill CM, Gerstorf D, Bertram L

Communications medicine · 2026

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>The disproportionate increase in lifespan compared to healthspan(definition) over the past decades results in a growing proportion of life marked by diseases, even if incidence rates are falling in some cases. However, not everyone ages at the same pace and some people remain in good health and preserve physical and cognitive function into old age. To quantify inter-individual differences in the biological aging process, numerous indicators of biological age have been developed.<h4>Methods</h4>In this study, we analyzed 16 measures of biological aging including epigenetic clocks, proteomics clock, telomere(definition) length, and SkinAge, laboratory composite markers (BioAge, Allostatic Load), psychological aging, and Brain Age. These age markers were evaluated cross-sectionally as well as longitudinally in the context of age-associated outcomes covering frailty, mobility, cognitive function, depressive symptoms, autonomy in daily life, nutrition, morbidity, and chronic disease in participants of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II).<h4>Results</h4>Here, we analyze longitudinal data from 1083 participants (mean age of 68.3 years at baseline, 52% women) with an average follow-up period of 7.4 years. Allostatic Load Index and DunedinPACE show the strongest and most consistent cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with age-associated phenotypes. Furthermore, both biomarkers individually increase the accuracy of a logistic regression model trained to predict incident cases of Metabolic Syndrome, high cardiovascular risk (Lifes's Simple 7) as well as incident frailty (Fried's frailty index) 7.4 years after baseline examination by up to 24 percentage points.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Our findings support the previously shown distinction between indicators of aging and provide a comprehensive overview of their individual strengths and weaknesses in the context of wide variety of age-associated phenotypes.

◌ CITATION ONLY
Full text is not openly licensed for redistribution here. Read it at the source:

Read at source →

Provenance

Source
Europe PMC
DOI
10.1038/s43856-025-01233-7
Canonical
link ↗
Fetched
2026-07-02 MST

Cite this

APA
VM, V., J, D., J, H., S, D., L, D., P, J., S, K., E, K., S, M., M, M., M, R., U, L., CM, L., D, G., L, B., &amp; I., D. (2026). Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of sixteen markers of biological aging from the Berlin Aging Study II. <em>Communications medicine</em>. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-025-01233-7
Vancouver
VM V, J D, J H, S D, L D, P J, et al. Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of sixteen markers of biological aging from the Berlin Aging Study II. Communications medicine. 2026. doi:10.1038/s43856-025-01233-7.
BibTeX
@article{vetter2026Compre, title = {Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of sixteen markers of biological aging from the Berlin Aging Study II.}, author = {Vetter VM and Drewelies J and Homann J and Düzel S and Deecke L and Jawinski P and Kühn S and Kubala E and Markett S and Mülleder M and Ralser M and Lindenberger U and Lill CM and Gerstorf D and Bertram L and Demuth I.}, journal = {Communications medicine}, year = {2026}, doi = {10.1038/s43856-025-01233-7}, }

Research neighborhood

References, citing works, and semantically nearest findings. Click a node to open it.

Related findings