Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse
Latest checks

Source study found

Story checked

Your age may not tell the whole story about how healthy you are (opens in a new tab)

news-medical.net · 2026-10-19

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

The claims we could check match the study, but some claims were not covered by the evidence reviewed.

  • 3 supported
  • 4 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Every claim we could check holds up. Three of seven claims match the study. This overall rating is based only on the claims we could check. Four claims the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 4 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

7 claims in this story

Showing all 7 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 7Not coveredThe study included 312 adults aged 35 and older; the article says the mean age was about 53 years and that most participants were female, physically active, and non-smokers.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated312 participants; mean age approximately 53 years

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports a total sample of 630 and an analysed subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥35. However, the mean age of about 53 years and the claims that most participants were female, physically active, and non-smokers are not available in the supplied abstract-depth profile.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

For the subgroup of participants aged ≥35 (n = 312), the Lifestyle Index (LI; range 0–10) had mean = 5.7, SD = 1.7, median = 5.5 as reported in the abstract.

“Mean LI score was 5.7 points (SD = 1.7; median = 5.5).”
Claim 2 of 7Not coveredA higher lifestyle index was modestly but significantly associated with lower bio-functional age, even after adjusting for chronological age.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedmodestly but significantly

Why this verdict

The profile supports a modest statistically significant correlation between the Lifestyle Index and lower BFA, reported as r = −0.233; p < 0.001. The specific statement that the association held after adjustment for chronological age is not verifiable from the abstract-depth profile, which explicitly lacks detail on covariate adjustment.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
Claim 3 of 7Not coveredAmong individual factors, higher scores for BMI categories, physical activity, and satisfaction with sexual life were significantly negatively correlated with bio-functional age, while physical activity showed the strongest association.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile reports negative correlations for physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, and normal BMI with BFS/BFA, and physical activity has the largest reported negative correlation among those factors. However, the abstract-depth profile does not provide p-values or otherwise verify that each individual factor was statistically significant, so the significance component is not verifiable at this depth.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
Claim 4 of 7Not coveredSleep quality was not significantly associated with bio-functional age, and alcohol was excluded from the final index after the authors said an initial association weakened and should not be read as evidence that drinking improves healthy aging.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile says very good sleep was one of the five selected Lifestyle Index factors and reports a correlation of r = −0.099, but it does not provide a p-value supporting the story’s statement that sleep quality was not significantly associated with BFA. The profile also confirms alcohol was handled separately in a sensitivity analysis and was not part of the five-item primary LI, but the abstract-depth profile does not verify the story’s fuller account that an initial alcohol association weakened or the authors’ specific caution about not interpreting drinking as beneficial for healthy aging.

1

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
2

Study evidence

Alcohol consumption is reported to "appear to exert an influence" on BFS/BFA and was therefore analyzed in a separate sensitivity analysis within the cohort.

“Alcohol consumption also appears to exert an influence; however, this aspect warrants separate discussion.”
Claim 5 of 7SupportedResearchers in Switzerland investigated what everyday habits and personal well-being might reveal about functional age.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports that the study investigated lifestyle and well-being-related factors associated with Biological Functional Status/Age in adults aged ≥35. The supplied profile does not independently establish the researchers’ Swiss affiliation/location, but the core scientific framing of the claim is supported.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
Claim 6 of 7SupportedIn a recent study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers examined lifestyle factors associated with bio-functional age (BFA) and developed a preliminary index to assess functional health.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile states that the study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors associated with BFS/BFA and develop a 0–10 Lifestyle Index. The index is described as requiring external validation, consistent with the story’s framing as preliminary.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
Claim 7 of 7SupportedThe authors cautioned that the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and that the index needs validation in independent, more diverse, larger cohorts before clinical use.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile explicitly identifies the study as monocentric, cross-sectional, and observational, states that causal inference is precluded, and reports that external validation and confirmation in more diverse populations are needed before routine clinical use. 'Independent' is consistent with external validation; 'larger' is directionally consistent with the validation concern, though the abstract profile specifically emphasizes more diverse populations.

1

Study evidence

A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
2

Study evidence

A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001

“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Descriptive LI distribution in the analysed subgroup: mean 5.7, SD 1.7, median 5.5.

    The story gives participant-level descriptive information but does not report the LI distribution statistics that are specifically present in the abstract profile.

    From cross-sectional observational

9 things the story did carry across
  • Monocentric cross-sectional observational design using a total sample of 630, with BFS/BFA and LI analyses performed in a subgroup of 312 adults aged ≥35.
  • Primary contribution: development of a 0–10 Lifestyle Index from five factors: high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking.
  • Main LI result: the constructed Lifestyle Index correlated with lower Biological Functional Age, r = −0.233; p < 0.001.
  • Individual factor correlations were small-to-modest; physical activity had the strongest negative correlation among the listed factors, followed by satisfaction with sexual life and normal BMI, with very good sleep also reported in the profile.
  • Never/past smoking was selected for the LI, with a reported correlation of r = 0.128 whose direction and interpretation are limited in the abstract profile.
  • Alcohol consumption appeared to influence BFS/BFA and was examined separately in a sensitivity analysis; abstract-level profile provides no quantitative effect estimate, direction, or detailed result.
  • Major limitation: cross-sectional observational design precludes causal inference.
  • Major limitation: monocentric sample and subgroup-based LI derivation limit generalizability.
  • Major limitation: no external validation reported; authors state validation and confirmation in more diverse populations are required before routine clinical use.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

4

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataDevelop a practical Lifestyle Index (LI; 0–10 points) based on key lifestyle factors and evaluate its association with BFA/BFS.Monocentric cross-sectional observationalExpand

In plain English

The authors developed a 0–10 point Lifestyle Index (LI) from five selected lifestyle factors and evaluated its association with Biological Functional Age (BFA) / Biological Functional Status (BFS) in the subgroup of participants aged ≥35 (n = 312). The LI correlated with lower BFA and is proposed as a simple, low-threshold assessment tool; the study is a monocentric, cross-sectional, observational analysis and the authors state external validation in more diverse populations is needed.

Key findings

  • A Lifestyle Index (LI) scored 0–10 was constructed from five lifestyle factors and shows a statistically significant association with lower Biological Functional Age (BFA).r = −0.233; p < 0.001
  • Mean and distribution of the LI in the analysed subgroup.mean = 5.7 (SD = 1.7); median = 5.5
“This study aimed to identify key lifestyle factors and to develop a Lifestyle Index (LI)”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Monocentric, cross-sectional observational design (limits inference on causality) — stated in abstract.
  • Primary LI derivation and evaluation reported for a subgroup aged ≥35 (n = 312); generalisability to other ages or more diverse populations not established.
  • No external validation reported; authors state external validation and confirmation in more diverse populations are needed.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

2secondary dataIdentify modifiable lifestyle factors associated with biological functional status/age (BFS/BFA) in adults aged ≥35 using a cross-sectional dataset.Monocentric cross-sectional observational studyExpand

In plain English

Monocentric cross-sectional observational study (n=630; subgroup aged ≥35, n=312) that analyzed associations between demographic, lifestyle and functional-health parameters and Biological Functional Status/Age (BFS/BFA). Statistical correlation analyses identified five modifiable lifestyle factors used to construct a 0–10 Lifestyle Index (LI) which was associated with lower BFA.

Key findings

  • A five-item Lifestyle Index (LI, 0–10 points) based on high physical activity, satisfaction with sexual life, normal BMI, very good sleep, and never/past smoking was constructed and correlated with lower Biological Functional Age.LI vs BFA: r = −0.233; p < 0.001
  • Individual lifestyle factors showed small-to-modest correlations with BFA: high physical activity (≥3×/week) had r = −0.212; satisfaction with sexual life r = −0.156; normal BMI r = −0.120; very good sleep r = −0.099; never/past smoking r = 0.128.Reported Pearson/Spearman correlation coefficients: r = −0.212 to 0.128 (individual factors)
“A monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study including 630 participants; BFS and LI were derived for a subgroup of 312 participants aged ≥ 35 years”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional, observational design precludes causal inference between lifestyle factors and BFS/BFA.
  • Monocentric sample and LI derivation performed on a subgroup (n=312) aged ≥35 limit generalizability.
  • Authors state need for external validation and confirmation in more diverse populations before clinical use.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

3secondary dataAssess alcohol consumption’s influence via a separate sensitivity analysis.sensitivity analysis within cross-sectional observational datasetExpand

In plain English

The authors report that alcohol consumption "appears to exert an influence" on Biological Functional Status (BFS)/Biological Functional Age (BFA) and therefore evaluated alcohol in a separate sensitivity analysis within their cross‑sectional study of adults aged ≥35 years.

Key findings

  • Alcohol consumption is reported to "appear to exert an influence" on BFS/BFA and was therefore analyzed in a separate sensitivity analysis within the cohort.
“Alcohol consumption also appears to exert an influence; however, this aspect warrants separate discussion.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional design and subgroup sample size (n = 312) constrain causal interpretation and may limit power to detect or precisely estimate alcohol effects.
  • Unclear whether and how potential confounders were controlled in the sensitivity analysis (e.g., physical activity, BMI, smoking, sleep).

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

4secondary dataProvide descriptive epidemiology of the cohort/subgroup (e.g., LI distribution, participant characteristics).cross-sectional observationalExpand

In plain English

Monocentric, cross-sectional observational study in which Biological Functional Status (BFS) and a derived Lifestyle Index (LI, range 0–10) were calculated for a subgroup of participants aged ≥35 (n = 312). The abstract reports the LI distribution for this subgroup: mean = 5.7, SD = 1.7, median = 5.5. Data collection included demographic, lifestyle and functional health parameters.

Key findings

  • For the subgroup of participants aged ≥35 (n = 312), the Lifestyle Index (LI; range 0–10) had mean = 5.7, SD = 1.7, median = 5.5 as reported in the abstract.
“Mean LI score was 5.7 points (SD = 1.7; median = 5.5).”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract states external validation and confirmation in more diverse populations are required before routine clinical use.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Open the paper in Tessa

Lifestyle factors associated with biofunctional age in a cross-sectional study of adults aged 35 and older

Scientific Reports · 2026

Source record (opens in a new tab)

Why this one

Near certain

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa is where you inspect it deeply.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

Crossref, Europe PMC, PubMed · 40 candidate papers

Selected

Lifestyle factors associated with biofunctional age in a cross-sectional study of adults aged 35 and older

Scientific Reports · 2026 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)
Candidate

Author Correction: Inference limits in partially observable Ethereum blockchains

Scientific Reports · 2026 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 34 more candidates considered.