LongeCityNews Last Updated: 24 March 2026 - 06:22 AM

The Buck Institute for Research on Aging today announced the launch of Healthspan Horizons, a new initiative designed to address one of the most urgent challenges in modern medicine: how to measure, understand, and extend healthspan—the years of life spent in good health.

People are living longer—but too many of those added years are spent managing chronic disease. In other words, healthspan—the years of life lived in good health—hasn’t kept pace. A growing body of evidence suggests that many aspects of healthy aging are changeable—and consequential for people, healthcare systems, and economies. What has been missing is the infrastructure to measure it coherently, compute it responsibly, and act on it collectively.

What Healthspan Horizons Is Building

Healthspan Horizons is building a new kind of healthspan research infrastructure: a platform that links multi-modal, real-world data from people’s everyday engagement with trusted wellness partners—like wearables, sleep, activity, nutrition, and labs—with periodic deep discovery measurements led by the Buck. The goal is to create uniquely powerful, long-term datasets that reveal what actually drives human healthspan over time—and to use responsible AI and the science of aging to turn those signals into interpretable healthspan trajectories and earlier signals of disease prevention.

Dense longitudinal datasets matter because their value compounds: when many different signals are measured on the same person over time, the data becomes exponentially more informative. That density makes it possible to detect subtle patterns, understand resilience, and identify early divergence from healthy aging—well before a sudden, life-ending, or life-debilitating disease takes hold.

Healthspan Horizons will support participation through partner programs and Buck-led studies, enabling individuals, wellness companies, and health systems to contribute longitudinal data under clear permissions and ethical governance. In return, participants gain access to a shared discovery engine: insights that emerge only when diverse data streams are responsibly linked over time—helping validate what works, identify earlier signals of decline, and benchmark outcomes across populations. Over time, the platform aims to translate these discoveries into clearer guidance on what helps people stay resilient—supporting more years of energy, strength, and independence.

Used responsibly, AI—grounded in Buck’s deep biology of aging—can integrate complex, multi-modal signals into interpretable healthspan trajectories, unlocking more years of energy, function, and independence. But that future is only possible if we can responsibly connect the right kinds of data at scale. Healthspan Horizons exists to make that integration possible—and to help democratize the benefits of healthspan science for all.

A Federated, Privacy-Preserving Model

Healthspan Horizons at the Buck Institute responds to this gap by reframing how healthspan science is organized. Instead of forcing data into a single silo, Healthspan Horizons enables partners to collaborate and learn together while keeping data stewardship where it belongs. Through a federated, privacy-preserving approach, approved analyses can run across partner environments—without requiring ownership or commercialization of individuals’ health data.

“The science of aging has matured to the point where extending healthy life is within reach. What we need now is the infrastructure to organize and apply that knowledge responsibly. Healthspan Horizons positions the Buck to help lead that next chapter—making healthspan measurable, trustworthy, and accessible to all,” said Eric Verdin, President and CEO, Buck Institute of Research on Aging.

“Most of us don’t just want a longer life—we want more years of energy, strength, and independence,” said Nathan Price, PhD, Professor, Buck Institute for Research on Aging; Co-Founder, Healthspan Horizons. “What’s been missing is a way to bring together deep, long-term health data and apply rigorous AI to understand what truly drives healthy aging—responsibly, interoperably, and at scale. Healthspan Horizons is built to make that possible.”

A Platform for Collective Healthspan Intelligence

Healthspan Horizons is designed as an open, federated platform that links deep biological data, longitudinal outcomes, and real-world context. By aligning fragmented data ecosystems through shared standards, interpretable intelligence, and ethical governance, the initiative creates the conditions for healthspan to become a practical and trusted unit of value across research, care delivery, and policy.

The platform invites participation not simply as users, but as co-builders of a healthspan commons.

• Researchers are invited to contribute methods, validation, and discovery into a shared framework that expands the reach, reuse, and real-world relevance of existing science —while preserving data privacy and consented data sovereignty.
• Clinicians and health systems can collaborate on translating complex data into interpretable healthspan trajectories that support prevention, early intervention, and functional longevity.
• Payers and employers can explore new models of value grounded in functional years gained, rather than episodic utilization.
• Individuals are invited to participate as informed partners, retaining agency over their data while benefiting from insights designed to support longer, healthier lives.
• Donors and public partners are encouraged to support shared infrastructure focused on healthspan as a public good.

Healthspan Horizons is focused on defining and validating shared healthspan measures—turning multi-modal longitudinal data into computable trajectories and early-warning signals that partners can use for research and prevention.

Why Buck, Why Now

Healthspan Horizons is driven by Buck Institute scientists and systems thinkers with decades of experience at the intersection of aging biology, data science, and translational research.

Led by Nathan Price, PhD, and Yi Sherry Zhang, PhD, this initiative launches with engagement from leaders across research, healthcare, philanthropy, and innovation ecosystems, including an advisory group spanning academic medicine, systems biology, precision health, and public health. Advisors include Larry Brilliant, MD, global public health leader and Co-Founder and CEO of Evity; Joel Dudley, PhD, biomedical AI entrepreneur, Co-Founder and CSO of Bevimi and former Chief Scientific Officer of Tempus; Kara Fitzgerald, ND, leading clinician–researcher advancing epigenetics and lifestyle medicine; Lee Hood, MD, PhD, pioneer of systems biology and CEO of Phenome Health; Shaista Malik, MD, MPH, Associate Vice Chancellor for Integrative Health at the University of California, Irvine and cardiologist specializing in preventive cardiology; Sara Szal, MD, functional medicine physician and New York Times bestselling author focused on precision longevity; and Eric Verdin, MD, President and CEO of the Buck Institute and internationally recognized geroscience leader.

“Medicine is shifting from reactive and episodic to predictive and preventive,” said Lee Hood, MD, PhD, pioneer of systems biology and Co-Director of the Center for Human Healthspan, Chief Innovation Officer and Distinguished Professor at the Buck Institute and Founder and CEO of Phenome Health. “To make that transformation real, we must move beyond fragmented data silos toward shared, federated intelligence. Healthspan Horizons helps build the computational and ethical foundation needed to make healthspan measurable and actionable.”

A Shared Commitment to the Future of Healthspan

The future of healthspan will not be defined by any single dataset, institution, or technology. It will be shaped by how effectively societies choose to organize, govern, and apply scientific knowledge.

Healthspan Horizons exists to help make that future possible—by ensuring that healthspan becomes computable, trustworthy, and accessible, while remaining grounded in human dignity and collective benefit.

The full Healthspan Horizons White Paper, Bridging Wellness & Clinical Science: A Federated Healthspan Data Framework for the 21st-Century Longevity Economy, outlines the scientific, technical, and governance foundations of this effort and is available at healthspanhorizons.org/whitepaper. Researchers, clinicians, organizations, and individuals interested in participating are invited to learn more at healthspanhorizons.org/join.

About Healthspan Horizons

Healthspan Horizons is a Buck Institute–based initiative focused on building shared infrastructure for healthspan science. Through federated data frameworks, interpretable intelligence, and ethical governance, Healthspan Horizons aims to accelerate discovery, translation, and collaboration across the global healthspan ecosystem. Learn more at: https://healthspanhorizons.org

As the treatment of aging as a medical condition became more mainstream, there was a tendency for advocates and researchers to avoid talking about extending life span. They instead talked about pushing back the onset of poor health and even said explicitly that the goal of research and development was not to lengthen overall human life. From the perspective of aging as an accumulation of cell and tissue damage and potential rejuvenation therapies as repair of that damage, this view is incoherent. A priori, we know that repairing damage will extend both the overall life span and the period of good function in machinery, including biology. This is well studied under the heading of reliability theory, modeling how damaged systems fail.

In medicine, however, we observe that about half of the upward trend in life expectancy over the past century or more arises from an extension to health without an extension to life span. How can that be? A common explanation is that some forms of late-life damage are relatively little affected by any advance in public health or medical technology. One possibility is that transthyretin amyloidosis is the mechanism of interest, an accumulation of harmful amyloid that contributes to cardiovascular disease, and is now thought to be much more prevalent than previously assumed. Since that is now a treatable condition, albeit one that is only actually treated in the rare very severe cases, it will be interesting to observe what happens when the therapies become generic and thus potentially widely used.

Healthy life extension: Geroscience's north star

Mikhail Blagosklonny was right to say out loud: the goal of geroscience is life extension. Not "vitality" or a polite euphemism for better late-life care, but life extension. He also insisted on disciplined evidence: if we claim we are modifying aging, we should demand hard outcomes in mammals rather than an endless parade of biomarkers. Where I would extend his argument, as a longevity physician, is: the field must stop treating "lifespan vs. healthspan" as a fork in the road. In medicine, and in the lives our patients actually live, they are not competitors. The only mission that is both scientifically coherent and clinically meaningful is healthy life extension: more years in full health.

The "healthspan, not lifespan" framing makes geroscience sound as though it is not about longevity, when longevity is what emerges from delaying the biology that drives multimorbidity. World Health Organization (WHO) data show that from 2000 to 2019, life expectancy increased more than healthy life expectancy, meaning we added years lived with disease or disability. A cross-national analysis quantified the global "healthspan to lifespan gap" at approximately 9.6 years. Modern systems deliver more years, but not more good years. That is precisely why geroscience must be more ambitious. We should treat healthy life extension as the goal and define success as health-adjusted longevity: extending lifespan while proportionally expanding function, resilience, and independence.

If we agree that the goal is healthy life extension, incrementalism becomes a choice rather than a constraint. Consider the balance sheet: within the National Institute on Aging (NIA) budget, the Division of Aging Biology is funded at roughly $346 million, whereas neuroscience-related research is funded in the billions. We have not resourced basic aging biology in proportion to its theoretical leverage: the possibility of delaying many diseases at once. This is not a call to rob disease programs. It is a call to stop pretending a civilization-scale problem can be solved with niche-scale funding.

For the first time, the Neuroscience of Vitality and Aging (NOVA) Conference is bringing together leaders from across neuroscience, biotechnology, policy, and investment to examine one of the most urgent questions in medicine today: how to preserve brain health across the lifespan and accelerate progress against neurodegenerative disease.

Hosted by the Aging Initiative, a nonprofit focused on building the aging research ecosystem in New England, NOVA is a one-day interdisciplinary conference designed to connect foundational brain-aging science with clinical translation and real-world implementation. While breakthroughs in neuroscience and longevity research have accelerated in recent years, meaningful collaboration between researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and industry leaders often happens in fragmented spaces. NOVA was built to bring those conversations together in a single forum.

The conference will take place on April 25, 2026, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM in Boston, MA (register for location). Attendance requires registration approval due to limited capacity.

Why This Matters

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s represent some of the fastest-growing global health challenges. Despite decades of research, meaningful therapeutic advances have been slow, even as neurotechnology, regenerative medicine, and computational neuroscience are rapidly evolving.

Critical conversations about brain aging remain siloed across academia, clinical practice, venture investment, and public policy. NOVA creates a space for these communities to interact directly, helping translate scientific discovery into interventions that reach patients. By convening participants across sectors and career stages, NOVA highlights brain aging as a modifiable biological process, not simply a late-life condition.

At a glance

• Event: Neuroscience of Vitality and Aging (NOVA) Conference
• Date: April 25, 2026
• Time: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
• Location: Boston, MA (register for location)
• Format: One-day conference with panels, workshops, and flash talks
• Attendance: Registration approval required
• Host: Aging Initiative

Contact: nova@aging-initiative.org

What the conference will cover

NOVA is organized around key themes shaping the future of brain aging research and care:

1) Development of new tools

Panels and sessions will highlight advances in neuroengineering, imaging, computational approaches, and brain–computer interface technologies that are transforming how scientists study and modulate brain function.

Key speakers: Ed Boyden (MIT McGovern Institute), Leigh Hochberg (Mass General Brigham)

2) Investment, policy, and economics

Experts will examine how funding, regulatory frameworks, and policy decisions shape innovation, therapeutic development, and the broader brain-aging ecosystem.

Key speakers: Alex Colville (Age1), Audrey Medeiros (Massachusetts Life Sciences Center)

3) Clinical progress and patient experience

Clinicians and industry leaders will discuss emerging therapeutics, clinical trials, diagnostics, and strategies to improve care for patients with neurodegenerative conditions, including perspectives from caregivers and advocates.

Key speakers: Merit Cudkowicz (MGB Neuroscience Institute), Christian Howell (Cognito Therapeutics)

4) Academic research and translational science

Researchers from academia will present findings in regenerative medicine, neural repair, and the biology of brain aging, emphasizing how foundational science informs translational strategies.

Key speakers: Mark Tomishima (BlueRock Therapeutics), Jean Hébert (ARPA-H)

Who should attend

NOVA is designed for a broad spectrum of participants:

• Neuroscience and biomedical researchers
• Clinicians and healthcare professionals
• Biotech entrepreneurs and investors
• Policymakers and health policy students
• Trainees and early-career scientists
• Patient advocates and caregivers

By bringing together diverse participants, NOVA creates conversations that rarely happen within a single discipline.

Highlights

• Opening Keynote: Joanne Smikle (American Brain Foundation) on why brain aging matters and keeping patients at the center of research.
• Flash Talks: Rapid-fire presentations from startup founders innovating in brain-aging therapeutics.
• Early-Career Workshop: Practical guidance for navigating careers in neuroscience, biotech, and aging research.
• Panel Diversity: From clinical translation and regenerative medicine to investment and neurotechnology, panels span science, policy, and industry.

About the Aging Initiative

The Aging Initiative is a nonprofit organization in Boston dedicated to strengthening the aging research ecosystem and supporting collaboration across academia, industry, and policy.

Through programming, partnerships, and events like NOVA, the organization works to accelerate progress in aging biology and ensure that scientific advances translate into meaningful improvements in healthspan and quality of life.

NOVA represents the Initiative’s flagship gathering for the neuroscience community—bringing together leading experts and emerging voices at a moment when breakthroughs in brain aging research are rapidly reshaping the field.

Imagine this pitch: a simple cheek swab or blood spot mailed from home tells you not your birthday but your “true” biological age – the number that supposedly reflects your real health trajectory. Patients increasingly walk into clinics clutching these reports, convinced they’ve discovered the secret to their future.

It’s an appealing idea. Aging is the single biggest risk factor for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, cancer, and nearly every chronic illness. If you could measure aging, track it, and reverse it, who wouldn’t want that?

Here’s the problem: today’s so-called “biological age” tests don’t measure what they claim, and when clinicians use them, they aren’t practicing cutting-edge medicine. They’re practicing bad medicine.

What These Tests Actually Do

Most “biological age” tests rely on epigenetics, chemical marks on DNA that change over time. Algorithms trained on these patterns can predict chronological age or, with later-generation clocks, correlate with mortality or disease risk. In research, these tools are valuable for studying how biology shifts across the lifespan.

But they don’t measure biological age. They measure DNA methylation status, which is correlated with chronological age (or disease risk or mortality), each of which is, in turn, correlated with biological age. Biological age tests are, at best, correlations to correlations. More importantly, outside of controlled research, their accuracy and precision are unknown.

Why Consumer Epigenetic Tests Fall Short

Despite these limits, direct-to-consumer companies continue selling epigenetic age tests, complete with glossy marketing and false promises to reveal your “true age” or “exact rate of aging.” In some cases, aggressive sales tactics have been employed to trick physicians, who may not understand the underlying biology or statistics, into believing these tests accurately measure something relevant for human health. This is bad enough, but many companies don’t stop there. The results are often packaged with supplement regimens, pitched as if the test could tell you which pills “work” for your biology.

This isn’t just misleading, it’s dishonest. The tests cannot measure biological age, let alone determine which supplement changes it. Yet, the business model depends on creating anxiety with a number, then selling the supposed solution right alongside it. It’s a bait-and-switch dressed up as personalized medicine.

Here are the problems:

• Unreliable results. In my own experiment, the same sample sent to the same company produced biological age estimates nearly 15 years apart. Across multiple companies, the discrepancies were even larger.
• No quality standards. Unlike diagnostic labs, no one monitors these tests for accuracy or consistency. A CLIA certification may ensure general lab competence, but it doesn’t validate the test itself.
• No clinical use. Unlike blood pressure, cholesterol, HbA1c, or VO₂max, these tests provide no actionable information. Even if accurate, they would at best show whether your trajectory is improving or declining without providing any information about cause and effect. But they aren’t accurate, and we already have far better ways to track health.

Why Providers Should Say No

Some clinicians justify offering these tests by saying, “My patients want them.” That’s not medicine. That’s customer service.

Good medicine requires three things of any diagnostic or screening tool:

1. Understanding the precision (what is the error in the measurement itself).
2. Knowing its accuracy (how close does it get to the true value).
3. Using it to guide care.

Epigenetic age tests fail on all three counts. Handing a patient a PDF with a “biological age” number is no different than giving them a horoscope. Worse, it risks replacing evidence-based care with false reassurance or unnecessary fear.

The idea that “we don’t have anything better” is flat wrong. We already have outstanding tools: glucose, insulin, lipids, DEXA, cardiac scans, VO₂max, strength and agility tests, cognitive assessments… the list goes on and on. They’re reliable, affordable, actionable, and predictive of real outcomes.

The Bigger Risk

Longevity science and medicine geared toward maximizing healthspan are entering a golden age. We’re learning more about the biology of aging than ever before, and legitimate interventions are on the horizon, but hype and pseudoscience threaten to undermine that progress.

If physicians start recommending unvalidated, inaccurate, and non-actionable tests, we don’t just mislead patients, we damage the credibility of the entire field.

Providers: you are the gatekeepers. Your role is not to indulge every consumer fad. It’s to guide patients with evidence, even when that means saying no.

Healthspan medicine can and should become a respected clinical discipline, but only if we demand rigor, honesty, and integrity – starting with the tests we choose to use.