ReviewBiogerontology2025
Bridging expectations and science: a roadmap for the future of longevity interventions.
Review in Biogerontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An aging essential 8: closing the gap between geroscience and the public it serves.Biogerontology · 2026Review
- Geroprotective Effects of Drugs Modulating Metabolic Pathways: Perspectives of Pharmacology in Anti-Aging Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Regulation and clinical manifestations of gluconeogenesis dysfunction.npj metabolic health and disease · 2026Review
- Mitochondrial Quality Control in Age-Related Diseases: From Molecular Architecture to Precision Therapeutics.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Public Perception of Lifestyle Medicine and the Integration of Behavioral Health: A Nationally Representative Survey of U.S. Adults 18.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2026Article
- From sick care to healthspan: educating the longevity physician for health maintenance and health promotion.Biogerontology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of longevity interventions has witnessed rapid expansion, driven by scientific advancements alongside growing industry and consumer interest. However, no longevity intervention has yet been proven effective or ready for widespread clinical adoption. A substantial gap persists between public expectations and the current scientific realities. This article explores four key themes: (1) consumer priorities regarding longevity interventions, (2) the type and depth of scientific information they value, (3) psychological, financial, and practical barriers limiting adoption, and (4) potential strategies to overcome these challenges. Despite increasing enthusiasm, clinical translation of longevity research is constrained by the lack of validated interventions, regulatory frameworks, and standardized biomarkers. By distinguishing between scientifically supported and unproven approaches, this article proposes a roadmap outlining the critical milestones necessary to advance longevity interventions from research to clinical readiness. The goal is to realign public understanding with the current state of longevity science and guide future efforts toward safe and effective translation.
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.