Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42844554›Full record

ArticleGeroScience2026

Against the "extend healthspan but not lifespan" cliché.

David Gems, Ekaterina R Iijima, João Pedro de Magalhães

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in GeroScience, 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

3 authors.

David GemsInstitute of Healthy Ageing, and Research Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. david.gems@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6653-4676
Ekaterina R IijimaInstitute of Healthy Ageing, and Research Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
João Pedro de MagalhãesGenomics of Ageing and Rejuvenation Lab, Department of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R014949/1Wellcome Trust 215574/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What is the ultimate goal of biogerontology (the study of the biology of aging)? A fashionable answer these days, often encountered, is that it is to extend healthspan not lifespan. Here we argue that this is a misguided cliché. Experimental research with animal models has demonstrated the possibility of intervening in and retarding the aging process, and extending lifespan. This, to varying degrees, increases both healthspan and gerospan, the later-life phase in diminished health. Considering possible equivalent interventions in human aging it would of course be desirable to maximize the former and minimize the latter. However, should a given intervention extend gerospan, given that it would postpone death (i.e., save lives) it would, in many circumstances, be unethical to withhold it. Life in moderately diminished health is generally preferable to death, and this is reflected in the recognized value of many life-saving medical interventions that do not restore full health. Thus, "extending healthspan but not lifespan" is not a coherent objective for research on aging.

Indexed as

BiogerontologyCompression of morbidityEthicsGeriatric medicineHealthspanLifespan

Identifiers

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.