Home › Research › Biomarkers
Biological Age and Age Acceleration Predict Alzheimer's Disease Plasma Biomarker Levels
Jaclyn M Eissman, Yiyi Ma, Min Qiao, Dolly Reyes-Dumeyer, Angel Piriz, Annie J Lee, Rafael A Lantigua, Martin Medrano et al.. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025-08-08
Topic: Genetics and APOE
Epigenetic clocks can predict pathological aging associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk, albeit findings are mixed regarding if clocks are predictive in blood and in non-European populations. We constructed epigenetic clocks from blood methylation data in 704 older Hispanic adults and tested the association with a clinical diagnosis of AD and plasma biomarker levels. Biological age and age acceleration, the rate of biological aging, were significantly associated with sex, clinical diagnosis, and levels of eight plasma biomarkers, including P-Tau217 levels. Additionally, biomarker associations trended more significant among APOE-ε4 non-carriers. We also identified that methylation levels in CD4 and CD8 T-cell types are associated with biological aging and showed slightly stronger associations in men. We demonstrate that biological aging, in blood, in a Hispanic cohort of both demented and non-demented individuals, can stratify AD risk, predicting plasma biomarker levels even in preclinical disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eissman, J. M., Ma, Y., Qiao, M., Reyes-Dumeyer, D., Piriz, A., Lee, A. J., et al. (2025). Biological Age and Age Acceleration Predict Alzheimer's Disease Plasma Biomarker Levels. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.22.25328181
Vancouver
Eissman JM, Ma Y, Qiao M, Reyes-Dumeyer D, Piriz A, Lee AJ, et al. Biological Age and Age Acceleration Predict Alzheimer's Disease Plasma Biomarker Levels. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. 2025. doi:10.1101/2025.05.22.25328181. PMID: 40661306.
BibTeX
@article{eissman2025-40661306,
author = {Eissman, Jaclyn M and Ma, Yiyi and Qiao, Min and Reyes-Dumeyer, Dolly and Piriz, Angel and Lee, Annie J and Lantigua, Rafael A and Medrano, Martin and others},
title = {{Biological Age and Age Acceleration Predict Alzheimer's Disease Plasma Biomarker Levels}},
journal = {medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1101/2025.05.22.25328181},
pmid = {40661306},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.22.25328181}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Epigenetic clocks can predict pathological aging associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk, albeit findings are mixed regarding if clocks are predictive in blood and in non-European populations.
- Biological age and age acceleration, the rate of biological aging, were significantly associated with sex, clinical diagnosis, and levels of eight plasma biomarkers, including P-Tau217 levels.
- Additionally, biomarker associations trended more significant among APOE-ε4 non-carriers.
- We also identified that methylation levels in CD4 and CD8 T-cell types are associated with biological aging and showed slightly stronger associations in men.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 25 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 15 of the 60 points we could judge it on, which is 25 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40661306) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 15 / 60 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 15 of the 60 points we could judge it on is 25 out of 100. |
| Total | 25 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
696 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 696 tagged studies.