Hi,
I got unexpected results for skinHorvath and Hannum clocks. Every patient in my data has estimated DNAm age that is lower than their chronological age (Though correlation between DNAmAge and chronAge is high ( R>0.85)). For other clocks such as Horvath and Levin, some patients have lower and some higher DNAm age compared to their chronological age (as one would expect). Do you know if there is something unique about the models used for skinHorvath and Hannum that may explain these underestimates? I used "methylclock version 1.6.0". Thank you!
Hi,
I got unexpected results for skinHorvath and Hannum clocks. Every patient in my data has estimated DNAm age that is lower than their chronological age (Though correlation between DNAmAge and chronAge is high ( R>0.85)). For other clocks such as Horvath and Levin, some patients have lower and some higher DNAm age compared to their chronological age (as one would expect). Do you know if there is something unique about the models used for skinHorvath and Hannum that may explain these underestimates? I used "methylclock version 1.6.0". Thank you!