Does childhood maltreatment accelerate biological aging?

Clinical takeaway: A history of childhood maltreatment can be a useful prompt to assess smoking and weight-related risks, which may be more relevant to day-to-day care than epigenetic aging measures.

Childhood maltreatment is associated with higher risks of chronic disease and premature mortality later in life. One possible explanation is that adversity early in life accelerates biological aging. But among adults followed to about age 60, DNA-based measures suggested that any difference in aging was modest, and familiar health risks appeared to be part of that picture.

Adults with court-documented maltreatment histories had slightly older biological age on GrimAge and a somewhat faster pace of aging on DunedinPACE than adults without documented maltreatment. GrimAge estimates accumulated aging-related biological damage, while DunedinPACE estimates how quickly biological deterioration is occurring. The differences between the groups were small.

The differences became even smaller when researchers accounted separately for smoking and body mass index (BMI). Smoking made the bigger difference: once it was taken into account, adults with and without childhood maltreatment histories looked much more similar on both measures of biological aging. Accounting for BMI narrowed the differences more modestly.

The authors suggested that behavioral pathways may help shape long-term differences in aging after childhood maltreatment, while epigenetic clocks may have a less certain role in individual care. That shifts some of the clinical attention toward familiar, potentially modifiable risks rather than trying to translate childhood adversity into a biological age score.

The analysis included 276 adults, including 164 with childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect documented in court records from 1967 to 1971. The comparison group was matched on demographic factors and childhood socioeconomic circumstances. Participants provided saliva samples in 2022 and 2023 for DNA methylation testing. Court records also allowed the researchers to examine maltreatment without relying on adults to recall childhood experiences decades later.

The findings also point to where the research could go next. The biomarker sample was small, and both aging measures were developed for blood rather than saliva, which may have produced smaller estimates. The authors called for similar studies using blood samples and for aging measures designed specifically for saliva.

For clinicians, the findings put epigenetic aging in perspective. A history of childhood maltreatment may offer more practical value as context for assessing smoking and weight-related risks than as a reason to seek a biological age score.

Source: Belsky DW, et al. (2026 Aug 10) JAMA Netw Open. Epigenetic Clock Analysis of Biological Aging in Adults With Documented Childhood Maltreatment