Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Some people remain healthy into old age without significant problems, while others become vulnerable and face a higher risk of diseases as they age. The Medical Delta Program 'GLIAGE' develops measurement methods to assess and monitor the risk of these conditions in people aged 55 and over using so-called 'biomarkers'.
In many cases, the risk of health conditions can be predicted based on measurements of 'metabolites' in the blood. A metabolite is a molecule or compound formed during metabolism or as part of an inflammatory process.
It is increasingly possible to create a biological profile using just a few drops of blood, making it possible to assess an individual’s risk of developing general frailty or specific conditions. The research group led by Medical Delta professor Prof. Dr Eline Slagboom at LUMC has developed a biomarker called 'Personal MetaboHealth', based on a scalable and affordable metabolite measurement. This biomarker reflects the overall health of people aged 50 and over, also referred to as 'biological age'.
Together with co-program leader Prof. Dr Jessica Kiefte-de Jong of the Health Campus The Hague, Slagboom is investigating the potential applications of this biomarker. Lifestyle interventions lead to improved Personal MetaboHealth scores, particularly among high-risk groups of older adults. This also makes it possible to calculate the expected health gains for participants, making the impact tangible.
The Medical Delta Program 'GLIAGE' is developing ways to make these potential biomarker-based health checks more widely available and to use the resulting data to provide more targeted preventive healthcare for older adults. Healthcare professionals can support individuals with a high-risk profile through personalized lifestyle interventions to reduce their risk.
After just one year, the program has progressed to the point where a pilot can be launched. Together with practice partners, the team is exploring how these biomarkers can be applied as measurement tools in healthcare practice. Leefstijlcentrum Haaglanden is one of these practice partners and will later this year begin linking biomarker data to targeted preventive healthcare.
We spoke with Pieter Flaton, co-founder of Leefstijlcentrum Haaglanden, at the start of the implementation process. "If you can demonstrate that participating in a health programme has a measurable effect on your health, it can provide tremendous motivation. You make health tangible, to some extent."
What role will you play in the program?
"We were approached to participate because dozens of people come to us with health challenges, mostly older adults, and they are motivated to do something about it. Many of them are following a CLI program (Combined Lifestyle Intervention, a two-year program for people with obesity, ed.). This makes them an interesting study group for the program.
At the same time, our own approach is very broad. ‘Physical activity’ is always our starting point, but good health requires much more. That is what we can provide.
The Medical Delta Program 'GLIAGE' is a great example of a public-private partnership. There is structural public funding for the research. We are, ultimately, a company and are agile, able to make quick decisions ourselves. In this combination, we can rapidly see whether what has been developed in the research program works in practice or needs to go back to the drawing board. We see the people, we speak to them, and we measure their health progress."
How does this align with your current way of working?
"People here can complete a personalized health program. We continuously measure factors such as weight, body fat percentage, and biological age, so participants can see whether they are making progress. For the people who come here, it is already quite normal for these things to be tracked.
Biomarkers are a valuable addition to this, especially when combined with conversations about health and lifestyle, or more in-depth discussions based on the data.
Motivation plays a huge part. That is very important. People who come to us are already motivated to work on their health. Most are also willing to participate in research like this, which is a relationship we often already have established.
Of course, we are a commercial organization, but one with a societal mission. The staff here are willing to dedicate their own time, space, and resources to a higher goal. So we have motivated researchers, a motivated study group, and a motivated team of facilitators.
With this combination, I expect that we can implement things quickly or find out rapidly if something doesn’t work quite as intended."
How can biomarker analyses help you in your work?
"Ultimately, the hope is that a measurement methodology using biomarkers provides an indication of expected health. So you can estimate whether someone has an increased risk of diabetes, or, for example, a lung or heart condition, and then address it in a targeted way. Like a kind of traffic-light system: you see a number of indicators, and if something turns orange or red, and you can influence it, you discuss it with the client.
I see an individual conversation combined with a report as the foundation of our work: you shouldn’t just advise and guide people, but also monitor them so you can check in along the way. This includes other aspects of life as well. What does the client want to work on? Are there underlying factors? Maybe someone is struggling with stress due to a personal situation, not everything needs to be medical. Based on that, you choose an approach. If you only use data as a starting point, such as a biomarker value, there is a risk of missing important context.
This is something I am curious about: if we split the study group into one group receiving extensive personal guidance with the intervention, including conversations and attention, and another group receiving only the intervention, and we track both with biomarkers, I expect the outcomes to differ. This could be the key to integrating biomarkers into healthcare: combining it with guidance and support."
You are involved as a practice partner at an early stage. Why is that important?
"I think this will help with further development. In other innovation projects, things can go wrong. For example, we once tested a diagnostic measurement using a finger prick that seemed well-designed in theory, but in practice it was not user-friendly and the logistics didn’t work well. We stopped that early on.
Being involved at an early stage of the research to assess practical applicability is a major step forward.
About a year ago, we got in touch with Leiden University Medical Center. For the Medical Delta Program ‘GLIAGE', we will continuously perform measurements during the process of guiding people toward better health. Currently, we are working with the researchers to develop a suitable implementation plan, and then we will start.
Normally, measurements and research methodologies are fully designed, tested, and only applied at the very end. The fact that we are now involved so early in assessing the practical applicability of these measurements is, in my view, a huge step forward. We can now conduct interim evaluations at an early stage to adjust the course of the research if something does not work as expected."
What do you and your colleagues need to set up a successful implementation process?
"I see us as the translators of scientific findings and research, ultimately to the people we guide here. That also means we need to fully understand why this is important for the participants.
We have a relevant research group, the facilities, a broad perspective and a wide range of health offerings, and professionals who can work with this and engage in conversations with clients, that’s all fine. What becomes more important is how we motivate people to participate and continue participating.
The ‘why’ of this research is crucial for that. And I don’t mean the scientific reason for having studied something, but rather: why is this important for us and for the participants to take part in."
What is your answer to that ‘why’ question?
"I think it ultimately comes down to personal control. We are born with a certain DNA, a blueprint for our future health. Some people are fortunate in that regard, others less so. At the same time, there is growing scientific evidence that you can have a significant influence on your expected health throughout your life. You want to spark that insight.
If you can make it clear, that participating in a health program has a demonstrable effect on your health, it can provide tremendous motivation. You make health tangible to some extent. People can think: ‘I may have this condition or be at high risk for a certain disease, but I can do something about it myself.’
It’s also about ‘experienced health.’ Simply put: ‘how do you feel right now?’ If experienced health improves over time, and you can also demonstrate this with biomarkers, people gain an even stronger sense that they can influence their own health. That combination, personal control and seeing the results of your efforts, is, I believe, the most important for the people who come here. Insight, perspective, and personal control: that’s what it’s all about."
Transdisciplinary collaboration fits well with that. Do you see it emerging in the program?
"The fact that we were asked to participate at such an early stage of the research is, in itself, already the answer to that question.
What I also find interesting is this: suppose a biomarker does not show any scientific change, but someone feels healthier and more vital after an intervention. Then we can make the choice and take the freedom to continue anyway, which you don’t always have when it’s purely about the research. Ultimately, we work for our clients, and if someone reports feeling better or healthier due to a certain change or intervention, that guides our next steps.
You need to approach these kinds of innovation projects from multiple perspectives to determine what works and why.
A well-known example is a care home where care robots were introduced. Residents’ experienced health and well-being improved significantly. Later, it turned out that this improvement was not due to the robots, but to the extra time and personal attention the participating residents received from staff during the implementation process.
This is why such innovation projects need to be approached from multiple perspectives and domains to determine what works and why. Research cycles must be shorter, with faster feedback from practice. Transdisciplinary research and collaboration are essential in this."
Photo's: Guido Benschop, text: Sietse Pots
