Actually, just about any filter will become "better" with age.
Now - first we have to exclude situations where filters are used TOO far, or are WAY too old.
But in "normal" use, just about any filter increases it's efficiency. Simple explanation; as the media loads up, it closes down the pore size to ever tighter openings, thus reducing the size of particle that can pass through the next time. It's a self-fulfilling prophesey; the more it traps, the smaller particle it can trap, which goes round and round ...
Only if the media were to become blinded off to a point where th bypass were to open frequnelty/always, would there be an issue. That is typcially much further out than folks think.
Ironically, we are programmed as a society to always think that "new" is "better". In some examples, I would completely agree with that. "Newer" engine designs certainly are "better"; they run cleaner, get better fuel economy, and have more power density per displacement. And "newer" oils are also "better"; oils that are made today have stronger add-packs, and more robust base stocks due to refining and manufacturing capabilities.
But dumping in "new" engine oil and putting on a "new" filter (say every 3k miles versus every 7.5k miles) really does not achieve what folks think it does. As oil ages in the crankcase, and filters catch more particulate, they both actually improve as the miles pass.
And that is particularlly what this article shows. Between the SAE studies, and my data bank evidence of many thousands of UOAs, wear rates actually do go down as the lube system matures. It is beneficial to leave the oil in place as long as practical; there is litte benefit to changing oil often on some blind-obedience schedule.