Blood-biochemistry age clock from 11 routine markers and all-cause mortality
An abstract reports a Blood-Biochemistry Age Clock built from 11 routine blood markers; in the UK Biobank cohort it predicted all-cause mortality better than PhenoAge in univariate analysis, while PhenoAge was better in multivariate analysis. [1]
Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed
The key findings
The Blood-Biochemistry Age Clock is built from 11 routine blood biomarkers and converts their levels into years added or subtracted according to a biomarker risk profile for all-cause mortality. [1]
In the UK Biobank cohort the clock predicted all-cause mortality better than PhenoAge in univariate analysis, but PhenoAge was better in multivariate analysis. [1]
In the NHANES dataset the clock and PhenoAge performed similarly, while PCAge and LinAge achieved the best mortality prediction. [1]
The source at a glance
- Study type / format
- Cohort analysis reported in an abstract
- Population / context
- People in the UK Biobank cohort and the NHANES dataset, as described in the abstract.
- Summary based on
- Study abstract
- Original publication
- July 12, 2026
11 routine markers turned into added or subtracted years
The abstract describes a Blood-Biochemistry Age Clock (BBAC) made of 11 routine blood biomarkers. It works by converting a person's biomarker levels into years added or subtracted according to a biomarker risk profile for all-cause mortality. The authors present it as an interpretable alternative to established 'omic' aging clocks, which they describe as expensive and hard to interpret. The BBAC and PhenoAge were calculated for people in the UK Biobank cohort, and the results were linked to all-cause mortality and to the incidence of eight common chronic diseases.
Supporting source [1]
UK Biobank: BBAC better univariate, PhenoAge better multivariate
Mortality was analysed with univariate and multivariate Cox models. In univariate prediction of all-cause mortality in the UK Biobank cohort, the BBAC outperformed PhenoAge (Akaike Information Criterion -910749.6 vs. 912914.9). It was also a better univariate predictor of disease incidence, with a lower value on the same criterion. In multivariate prediction of all-cause mortality, however, PhenoAge exceeded the BBAC (-890855.6 vs. 893294.4). An optimised version of the BBAC was then better than PhenoAge both in the univariate (-154165.7 vs. 155217.6) and in the multivariate setting (-151006.9 vs. 151031.9). For multivariate disease incidence the results were mixed.
Supporting source [1]
NHANES: similar to PhenoAge, behind PCAge and LinAge
The mortality analysis was also performed on the NHANES dataset, where additional aging clocks (PCAge and LinAge) served as predictors. There, the BBAC and PhenoAge performed similarly, while PCAge and LinAge achieved the best mortality prediction. The abstract concludes that the BBAC is an explainable and interpretable aging clock with good ability to predict all-cause mortality. It does not report sample sizes, follow-up length or effect sizes beyond the comparison values, and the full text was not reviewed.
Supporting source [1]
How to interpret this
Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. Sample sizes, follow-up length and effect sizes beyond the reported comparison values are not given. The findings are associations from cohort analyses, not evidence that the clock causes or changes mortality risk.
Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.
Source & supporting passages
Šelb J, Deutsch L, Červek M, Pratt MB, Bedrač L, Mohorčič D, Sebanc N, Ašič U, Terzič S, Kuščer E, Maier AB, Cvetko F. · europepmc.org · July 12, 2026