Replacing calendar age did not improve a heart risk model
For deaths from any cause, prediction scores were 0.744 using calendar age and 0.011–0.081 lower after researchers substituted DNA-based age.
Limit: Participants were primary-prevention adults aged 50–79, not people outside that age range
Edited by Boris Djordjevic · AgingResearch.News
Researchers studied 1,516 adults aged 50–79 in a retrospective observational cohort focused on primary prevention—preventing a first heart or blood vessel event. They replaced calendar age in established cardiovascular risk equations with eight estimates of biological age based on chemical marks on DNA. Over 17.4 years, 507 participants died, including 140 from cardiovascular causes.
Replacing calendar age did not improve prediction. The scores measured how well the models distinguished people who died from those who survived. Several DNA-based age measures remained associated with death after researchers accounted for the original risk estimates. These associations persisted in groups with both low and high initial predicted risk.
Why it matters
Calendar age strongly shapes estimates of heart and blood vessel risk. The study addressed whether measuring biological aging could make those estimates more informative.
Caveats
This observational study assessed prediction, not whether changing biological age changes risk. The findings came from a congress abstract covering primary-prevention adults aged 50–79, not people outside that age range.
The paper
Epigenetic vs chronologic age for cardiovascular risk assessment
Mayo Clinic Hospital; Houston Methodist
ESC Congress 2026 Abstract, Oct 26, 2026, Open access
Presented at ESC Congress 2026
