Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40353717›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2025

Too well to die; too ill to live: an update on the lifespan versus health span debate.

Deepak Jugran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

1 author.

Deepak Jugran

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the dawn of human civilisation, the pursuit of immortality has been a perennial quest. Over the past century, unprecedented advancements in medical science, public health initiatives, and social policies have significantly increased the global human lifespan. The debate between lifespan (the total number of years a person lives) and health span (the period of life free from chronic disease or disability) has gained considerable attention in both scientific and public discourse, with global focus now gradually shifting from merely living longer to living better. With this increase, a critical question has emerged: are these additional years truly spent in good health? As the global elderly population projected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, this demographic shift is expected to place a substantial burden on health care systems, economic structures, and social frameworks. Emerging research in epigenetics, regenerative medicine, and lifestyle medicine suggests that preventive measures and personalised interventions can compress morbidity, promote healthier ageing trajectories, and ultimately increase health span. We review current lifespan and health span frameworks to foster dialogue among basic scientists, clinical specialists, social scientists, public health experts, and policymakers, advocating for a balanced approach that prioritises extending healthy, functional years of life over simply increasing lifespan.

Indexed as

Global HealthLife ExpectancyLongevityAgedHumans

Identifiers

PMID40353717
PMCPMC12068195

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.