Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41366834›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

Why we age.

Michael S Ringel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael S RingelLife Biosciences, 75 Park Plaza, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three categories of explanations exist for why we age: mechanistic theories, which omit reference to evolutionary forces; weakening force of selection theories, which posit that barriers exist that prevent evolutionary forces from optimising fitness in ageing; and optimisation theories, which posit that evolutionary forces actually select for ageing under the constraints that exist due to limited energy and other resources. We now have a broad data set of observed features of ageing against which these categories of theories can be tested, including results of interventions like caloric restriction, features of long-lived organisms, the existence of mortality rate plateaus, longevity of eusocial insect queens, and the malleability of lifespan. Optimisation theories are the only ones that fit all the observed data. Moreover, this category of theory makes a very ordinary claim, consistent with significant other data: evolution by natural selection is operating in ageing. It is actually quite extraordinary, either implicitly or explicitly, to claim that natural selection fails to operate, as the other categories of theories do. A key prediction of optimisation theories that differs from other theories is that mutations that extend lifespan should generally reduce fitness under natural conditions. Contrary to some suggestions in the literature, to date the available evidence supports this prediction. Optimisation theories have several implications, including that lifespan should be relatively easy to manipulate by tapping into existing biological mechanisms, and that the geroscience hypothesis, which states that intervention on the rate of ageing should also modulate the incidence of age-related diseases, is likely to be correct.

Indexed as

AgingBiological EvolutionAnimalsLongevitySelection, Geneticageingagingantagonistic pleiotropydisposable somahealthspanhyperfunctionlifespanlongevitymutation accumulation

Identifiers

PMID41366834
PMCPMC12965854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.