Want to live longer? Northwestern lab aims to measure biological age to guide healthspan gains

A Northwestern University initiative is pushing the frontier of aging research by measuring biological age and testing interventions that could slow aging and extend healthspan. The effort centers on the Human Longevity Laboratory, part of the Potocsnak Longevity Institute, where researchers assess how old a person’s cells and organs appear and what, if anything, can be done to keep them younger for longer. The project is advancing a broader ambition: to make aging research accessible and actionable across populations, not just among the wealthiest, with a goal of expanding a person’s healthy years even if total life expectancy remains uncertain.

Dr. Douglas Vaughan, a prominent cardiologist who leads Northwestern’s Longevity Institute and its laboratory, says the aim is to establish a global network of longevity labs by next year. Plans already underway include facilities in Japan, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. Vaughan, who previously led Vanderbilt University’s cardiology department, emphasizes the intent to democratize aging science as it matures. “We want to find ways to slow down aging for the 99% of people in the world, not the 0.01%,” he said in a recent interview conducted for TIME’s longevity series.

To understand why this work is taking shape, it helps to define aging in two dimensions. Chronological age is simply the number of years a person has lived, but biological age reflects how aging manifests in tissues and organs. The gap between these two measures can reveal how lifestyle, environment, and genetics influence aging. Vaughan notes that some people appear biologically younger than their calendar years, while others age more rapidly due to chronic conditions, HIV, kidney disease, diabetes, or the lasting effects of childhood cancer. The possibility that biological age is malleable underpins the lab’s mission: identify where aging is progressing fastest and target those systems with interventions or lifestyle changes.

At the Human Longevity Laboratory, researchers perform a panel of assessments to estimate biological age. They use body composition analysis via DEXA scans, tests of cardiac and vascular aging, gait speed measurements, grip strength, and pulmonary function tests. They also employ molecular tests and AI-driven “biological age clocks,” including one that analyzes retinal photographs supplied to a partner team in New Zealand. The resulting data are processed in the cloud, and participants receive a biological age estimate within seconds. Vaughan describes this as a practical, if still evolving, toolkit that goes beyond what a typical primary care visit would cover.

The lab’s core purpose is to identify a gap between chronological and biological age and to determine how to narrow that gap for people who are aging more quickly because of health or environmental factors. The overarching hypothesis is that if aging — the strongest risk factor for many adult diseases — can be slowed, healthspan could be extended by years, improving quality of life as people live longer.

The program’s early experience has informed its stance on interventions. Vaughan says the team is cautious about drugs and supplements that lack solid evidence and argues that the field still lacks clear data on several popular approaches. While enthusiasts sometimes point to compounds such as NAD boosters, creatine, stem-cell therapies, or plasma-based infusions, Vaughan says Northwestern will test interventions in a structured way and rely on multi-dimensional aging clocks rather than a single measure to guide recommendations. He stresses that no single test should dictate decisions for patients and cautions against promises tied to online “biological age” clocks before their usefulness is validated.

The study of biological age at Northwestern is not just about measurement. The Longevity Institute hosts multiple centers, including HIV and aging and population science and aging, and it is developing wearable technologies to monitor aging-related changes across systems. Researchers are examining environmental exposures that influence aging and have already observed that smoking accelerates aging and that some cannabinoids may have unexpected effects. They have also noted that Long COVID appears to accelerate aging in some individuals, while access to green space may mitigate it. The institute’s ambition is global: to enroll participants in pragmatic, short-term clinical trials across diverse populations and environments to determine which interventions can slow aging in real-world settings.

From a logistical standpoint, the program charges about $4,200 for a comprehensive biological age assessment, a price Vaughan describes as high but reflective of the breadth of testing offered. Some participants are enrolled in research trials that offset these costs. The lab emphasizes that its clinical work sits alongside ongoing research within the Longevity Institute, creating a pipeline from measurement to intervention.

Beyond Northwestern, the institute is pursuing international collaboration. A partnership with Tohoku University in Japan, along with ties to Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami and the London Clinic, anchors a network that also includes a collaboration with Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Vaughan says the plan is to place longevity labs across multiple continents within 12 months and to enroll participants in pragmatic trials that test how stress reduction, lifestyle modification, and pharmacological approaches might slow aging in diverse settings. The first of these studies is slated to investigate whether stress reduction can influence biological age.

Genetics is only part of the aging story, Vaughan notes. While families may have long-lived members, the contribution of genetics to lifespan is likely less than 20 percent, with environment and behavior playing larger roles. That perspective informs the institute’s emphasis on place, activity, and health status as targets for intervention, rather than a fatalistic reliance on heredity. Looking ahead, Vaughan cautions that predicting a dramatic increase in human lifespan to 150 years is unlikely for most people, but extending healthy years by two to four years could yield substantial social and economic benefits by reducing disease burden and healthcare demand.

This article is part of TIME Longevity, an editorial platform exploring how and why people are living longer and what this means for individuals, institutions, and society at large. The Northwestern work described here reflects the broader push to translate aging science into practical health improvements for a wide population, while continuing to pursue rigorous evidence about what actually works to slow aging in humans.