Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41870707›Full record

ReviewBiogerontology2026

Aging is not a disease: an evolutionary and comparative biological reappraisal.

Bruno César Feltes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biogerontology, 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.

Bruno César FeltesInstitute of Biosciences, Department of Biophysics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande Do Sul - UFRGS, Avenida Bento Gonçalves 9500 - Prédio 43422, Sala 218, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 91509-900, Brazil. bruno.feltes@ufrgs.br.

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul 24/2551-0001277-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of whether aging should be classified as a disease has gained prominence in geroscience, fueled by advances in molecular biology and the aspiration to develop interventions that mitigate age-associated functional decline. However, evolutionary models describe aging as an emergent consequence of declining selection gradients and life-history trade-offs rather than as a deviation from species-typical function. Comparative data across taxa reveal substantial heterogeneity in aging trajectories, challenging the assumption of a uniform pathological pattern. At the molecular level, processes often described as "hallmarks of aging" reflect conserved regulatory mechanisms whose effects are context-dependent and do not consistently align with criteria used to define diseases. Likewise, epigenetic clocks capture molecular signatures that track biological aging and predict mortality risk, yet these biomarkers reflect time-dependent molecular remodeling rather than an underlying pathological process. While translational research aimed at extending healthspan has generated important advances, current empirical evidence does not support equating aging with disease in a strict biological sense. Even though the classification of aging is not relevant to the importance of investing in aging research to alleviate its burden, maintaining a clear conceptual distinction between time-dependent biological remodeling and pathological dysfunction may provide a more coherent basis for both scientific inquiry and therapeutic development.

Indexed as

AgingBiological EvolutionAnimalsEpigenesis, GeneticHumansAgingDiseaseDisease burdenDisease classificationDNA repairEvolutionEvolutionary theory of agingInflammaging

Identifiers

PMID41870707
PMCPMC13009041

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.