Your topics. New publications.

A compact browser notification when there’s something new. At most once a day — no account needed.

What interests you?

Optional and switchable off here at any time. We save your selected topics and device subscription; no email address is required. Privacy

Search the harborEN/DEAccount
Biological age & clocks
Research brief

Scoping review of 435 biological-aging papers: markers, mechanisms and metrics

This scoping review analyzed 435 papers on biological aging published from 2011 through June 2023, 309 of them on non-methylation-based biomarkers, and describes changing use of molecular markers over time, new metrics, and consistent and discordant findings. [1]

Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed

The key findings

  1. The scoping review analyzed 435 papers on biological aging published from 2011 through June 2023. [1]

  2. Of these papers, 309 focus on non-methylation-based biomarkers. [1]

  3. The review identifies consistent and discordant findings and areas for future research on measurement. [1]

The source at a glance

Study type / format
Scoping review (abstract)
Population / context
435 published papers on biological aging from 2011 through June 2023
Summary based on
Study abstract
Original publication
September 8, 2026

Biological aging defined apart from chronological age

The review frames biological aging as a rapidly growing research area that aims to characterize the rate of aging independently of a person's chronological age. The authors analyzed results from biological aging research across 435 papers published in a 12-year window from 2011 through June 2023.

Supporting source [1]

Non-methylation biomarkers dominate the 435 papers

Of the 435 papers, 309 focus on non-methylation-based biomarkers. The review reports changing patterns in how molecular markers of biological aging are used over time, alongside the development of novel metrics of biological aging.

Supporting source [1]

Consistent and discordant findings and measurement questions

The authors identify consistent and discordant research findings and point to areas of potential future research. These focus on questions of measurement with biomarker-based assessment and on other variables relevant to the study of biological age.

Supporting source [1]

How to interpret this

Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. The abstract reports no study-level designs, samples, follow-up or effect sizes, and describes a scoping review of published papers rather than new primary data.

Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.

Source & supporting passages

[1]
Molecular markers, mechanisms and metrics of biological aging: a scoping review.

Ziesel A, Reeves J, Mallidou A, Newton L, Rhodes RE, Zhang J, Paterson T, Jabbari H. · europepmc.org · September 8, 2026

Read the quoted passagesIn the language of the original source
  1. Finding 1 ↑

    435 papers published in a 12 year
  2. Finding 2 ↑

    309 of which focus on non-methylation-based biomarkers
  3. Finding 3 ↑

    consistent and discordant research findings

AI-assisted summary with linked source passages. No independent editorial or clinical review.

Our editorial method

Discussion

Community discussions

0 topics

Member contributions. Share sources, disclose commercial interests, and avoid personal medical or dosing advice.

Loading…