ArticleBiogerontology2025
Realistic expectations for changes to average human lifespan in the near future.
Article in Biogerontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Turning back time: a comprehensive list of interventions that decrease next-generation epigenetic aging clocks in humans.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent publication presented the results of a survey given to longevity experts that attended the 2022 Systems Aging Gordon Research Conference. Corroborating results from a prior survey and broader discussions in the field, the authors found that there was little consensus on fundamental topics, including what causes aging. While this disagreement is not particularly surprising, the spread of answers to the following prompt was unexpected: "The average lifespan in developed countries will be increased by >10 years in the next 20 years." On a five-point agreeability scale, a slight, significant majority of respondents indicated agreement with this projection. To get a sense of how ambitious this prediction is, a previous analysis concluded that preventing every single cancer death would only increase life expectancy at birth by around three years. Moreover, the majority of gains in life expectancy since 1900 are due to improvements in preventing and managing infectious and contagious diseases. Given all of this, the lengthy lag between discovery and translation, the time required to prepare for and launch longevity-oriented clinical trials, and the limited number of reproducible interventions that robustly extend lifespan in male and female mice, it is unlikely that 10+ year increases to average lifespan are just around the corner in developed countries. While aging is undoubtedly modifiable and further improvements in longevity are achievable, the field's optimism should not distract from what is realistically attainable and the amount of work and time required to successfully identify, test, and translate pro-longevity interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879822What 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.