Biological aging clocks predict health outcomes, including morbidity and mortality, more accurately than chronological age alone, yet defining true biological age remains contentious. We propose ‘risk-equivalent’ age as an operationally defined metric that reflects an individual’s position on a continuum of clinically meaningful risk. Reconceptualizing biological age as a dynamic, risk-based vital sign may facilitate the use of aging clocks in clinical practice.
- Sheng Fong
- Woon-Puay Koh
- Jan Gruber