Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42812993›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2026

Intermittent and periodic fasting: molecular mechanisms, health benefits and research challenges.

Ya Liu, Hongwei Guo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 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

2 authors.

Ya LiuSchool of Graduate Studies, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.
Hongwei GuoCollege of Basic Medical and Sciences, Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intermittent fasting (IF) and Periodic fasting (PF) are biologically plausible non-pharmacological interventions. They trigger core metabolic reprogramming from glucose catabolism to ketogenesis and activate conserved nutrient-sensing networks including AMPK and sirtuins, coupled with mTOR/IGF-1 axis suppression. Such adaptive regulation enhances cellular repair, antioxidant defense and inflammatory homeostasis, conferring multi-system benefits encompassing metabolic improvement, neuroprotection, anti-tumor activity and healthspan extension. Clinically, time-restricted eating (TRE) and fasting-mimicking diets (FMDs) have demonstrated feasibility and short-term efficacy in pilot clinical studies, although their long-term translational potential and durability of benefits remain unproven. However, current research faces major bottlenecks: over-reliance on homogeneous animal models, insufficient high-quality long-term human trials, unresolved individual response heterogeneity, and the lack of validated non-invasive biomarkers and systematic long-term safety evidence. This mini-review systematically elaborates the core regulatory mechanisms of IF and PF through a hierarchical framework that distinguishes primary drivers from secondary consequences and speculative mechanisms, critically evaluates the evidence base across model systems, analyzes key translational barriers, and proposes a prioritized research agenda. Our objective is to provide a conceptually grounded synthesis that identifies genuine scientific uncertainty, distinguishes established knowledge from speculation, and offers a perspective capable of guiding future investigation toward precise clinical translation.

Indexed as

cellular repairclinical translationhealthspanintermittent fastingmetabolic reprogrammingperiodic fasting

Identifiers

PMID42812993
PMCPMC13621515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.