Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30124168›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2018

Horizons in the evolution of aging.

Thomas Flatt, Linda Partridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

121 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evolutionary genetics of ageing.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Distribution Analysis of the Lifespan Trait in Drosophila.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

61 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas FlattDepartment of Biology, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 10, CH-1700, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Linda PartridgeMax Planck Institute for Biology of Aging, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9b, D-50931, Cologne, Germany. partridge@age.mpg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Between the 1930s and 50s, evolutionary biologists developed a successful theory of why organisms age, firmly rooted in population genetic principles. By the 1980s the evolution of aging had a secure experimental basis. Since the force of selection declines with age, aging evolves due to mutation accumulation or a benefit to fitness early in life. Here we review major insights and challenges that have emerged over the last 35 years: selection does not always necessarily decline with age; higher extrinsic (i.e., environmentally caused) mortality does not always accelerate aging; conserved pathways control aging rate; senescence patterns are more diverse than previously thought; aging is not universal; trade-offs involving lifespan can be 'broken'; aging might be 'druggable'; and human life expectancy continues to rise but compressing late-life morbidity remains a pressing challenge.

Indexed as

AgingEnvironmentHumansLongevityMortalitySelection, GeneticSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID30124168
PMCPMC6100731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.