ArticleFrontiers in aging2022
Considerations Regarding Public Use of Longevity Interventions.
Article in Frontiers in aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intermittent and periodic fasting: molecular mechanisms, health benefits and research challenges.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public attention and interest for longevity interventions are growing. These can include dietary interventions such as intermittent fasting, physical interventions such as various exercise regimens, or through supplementation of nutraceuticals or administration of pharmaceutics. However, it is unlikely that most interventions identified in model organisms will translate to humans, or that every intervention will benefit each person equally. In the worst case, even detrimental health effects may occur. Therefore, identifying longevity interventions using human data and tracking the aging process in people is of paramount importance as we look towards longevity interventions for the public. In this work, we illustrate how to identify candidate longevity interventions using population data in humans, an approach we have recently employed. We consider metformin as a case-study for potential confounders that influence effectiveness of a longevity intervention, such as lifestyle, sex, genetics, age of administration and the microbiome. Indeed, metformin, like most other longevity interventions, may end up only benefitting a subgroup of individuals. Fortunately, technologies have emerged for tracking the rate of 'biological' aging in individuals, which greatly aids in assessing effectiveness. Recently, we have demonstrated that even wearable devices, accessible to everyone, can be used for this purpose. We therefore propose how to use such approaches to test interventions in the general population. In summary, we advocate that 1) not all interventions will be beneficial for each individual and therefore 2) it is imperative that individuals track their own aging rates to assess healthy aging interventions.
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.