Abstract
Many studies have shown that estimates of biological age (BA) can predict health-related outcomes in older adults. Often, researchers employ multiple measures belonging to a variety of biological/physiological systems, and assess the validity of BA estimates by how well they approximate chronological age (CA). However, it is not clear whether this is the best approach for judging a BA estimate, or whether certain groups of measures are more informative to this end. Using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging, we composed panels of biological measures based on the physiological systems/domains they belong to (blood, organ function, physical/cognitive performance), and also composed a panel of measures that optimized the association of BA with CA. We then compared BA estimates for each according to their association with CA and health-related outcomes, including frailty, multimorbidity, chronic condition domains, disability, and health care utilization. Although BA estimated using all 40 measures (r = 0.74) or our age-optimized panel (r = 0.77) most closely approximated CA, the strength of associations to health-related outcomes was comparable or weaker than that of our panel composed only of physical performance measures (CA r = 0.59). All BA estimates were significantly associated to the outcomes considered, with exception to the neurological and musculoskeletal disease domains, and only varied slightly by sex. In summary, while the approximation of CA is important to consider when estimating BA, the strength of associations to prospective outcomes may be of greater importance. Hence, the context in which BA is estimated should be influenced by an investigator's specific research goals.