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

Estimated heart age in ischemic heart disease using CMR and ECG

In an abstract, people with ischemic heart disease had a higher estimated heart age than those without it; conventional cardiac imaging indices explained only a small part of this. [1]

Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed

The key findings

  1. Among 2,142 people with prevalent ischemic heart disease, the estimated heart age gap was 1.55 years ± 5.66, significantly higher than in people without the disease. [1]

  2. The higher estimated heart ageing in ischemic heart disease was associated with selected vascular risk factors and only minimally explained by conventional CMR indices. [1]

  3. The authors call the heart age gap an exploratory framework and say prospective validation is required before clinical application. [1]

The source at a glance

Study type / format
Abstract of an observational study estimating biological heart age from CMR radiomics and ECG features
Population / context
People with prevalent ischemic heart disease (n = 2,142) compared with people without the disease
Summary based on
Study abstract
Original publication
July 17, 2026

Heart age gap in 2,142 IHD cases

The abstract describes a study estimating heart age in 2,142 people with prevalent ischemic heart disease (IHD), using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) radiomics and electrocardiogram (ECG) features. The heart age gap (HAG) was defined as the difference between predicted and actual heart age. People with IHD had a significantly higher heart age than those without the disease, with a HAG of 1.55 years ± 5.66. The abstract does not report how the comparison group was assembled or how many people it included.

Supporting source [1]

Vascular risk factors and standard CMR indices

The abstract states that the higher estimated heart ageing in IHD was associated with selected vascular risk factors. It also says this relationship was only minimally explained by conventional CMR indices. According to the authors, this suggests the heart age model captures additional imaging and electrical features beyond standard CMR measures. The abstract does not name the selected risk factors or quantify their contribution.

Supporting source [1]

Exploratory framework, not yet clinically validated

The authors describe HAG as a possible exploratory framework for characterising phenotypic heterogeneity in IHD and for contextualising cardiovascular risk. They explicitly state that prospective validation is required before clinical application. The abstract therefore reports an association between IHD and higher estimated heart age, not a cause of heart ageing, and not a validated clinical tool.

Supporting source [1]

How to interpret this

This is based on the abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. The abstract does not report the size or selection of the comparison group, the specific risk factors, effect sizes for the risk-factor associations, or prospective follow-up. The findings are associations, not evidence that ischemic heart disease causes heart ageing, and the model is not yet clinically validated.

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

Source & supporting passages

[1]
Advancing Heart Ageing in Ischemic Heart Disease: Insights from CMR and ECG Analysis.

Salih AM, Rauseo E, Galazzo IB, Pujadas ER, Campello VM, Lekadir K, Aung N, Slabaugh GG, Dabbagh GS, Chahal AA, Menegaz G, Petersen SE. · europepmc.org · July 17, 2026

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

    HAG: 1.55 years ± 5.66
  2. Finding 2 ↑

    associated with selected VRFs
  3. Finding 3 ↑

    prospective validation is required prior to clinical

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…