ArticleBioImpacts : BI2017
Debate on human aging and lifespan.
Article in BioImpacts : BI, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- mGluR5 ablation leads to age-related synaptic plasticity impairments and does not improve Huntington's disease phenotype.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Achievements and beyond: Scientific trajectory of Professor Mohammad A. Rafi.BioImpacts : BI · 2021Article
- CCR3 antagonist protects against induced cellular senescence and promotes rejuvenation in periodontal ligament cells for stimulating pulp regeneration in the aged dog.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A genomic predictor of lifespan in vertebrates.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the association between exosomal levels and female reproductive system and fertility outcome during aging: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Hallmarks of senescence and aging.Biochemia medica · 2019Review
- Telomere shortening as a hallmark of stem cell senescence.Stem cell investigation · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The issue of human lifespan has long been a matter of controversy among scientists. In spite of the recent claim by Dong et al that human lifespan is limited to 115 years, with the mounting improvements in biotechnology and scientific understanding of aging, we may be confident that aging will slow down over the course of the current century extending human longevity much longer than 115 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.