ArticleGeroScience2021
The San Diego Nathan Shock Center: tackling the heterogeneity of aging.
Article in GeroScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nervonic acid and 15-epi-PGA1 mediate systemic mitochondrial dysfunction in AD dementia.GeroScience · 2026Article
- In Vivo Chemical Reprogramming Is Associated With a Toxic Accumulation of Lipid Droplets Hindering Rejuvenation.Aging cell · 2026Article
- Protocol for the San Diego Nathan Shock Center Clinical Cohort: a new resource for studies of human aging.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Geroscience and pathology: a new frontier in understanding age-related diseases.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Review
- Improving the effectiveness of anti-aging modalities by using the constrained disorder principle-based management algorithms.Frontiers in aging · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding basic mechanisms of aging holds great promise for developing interventions that prevent or delay many age-related declines and diseases simultaneously to increase human healthspan. However, a major confounding factor in aging research is the heterogeneity of the aging process itself. At the organismal level, it is clear that chronological age does not always predict biological age or susceptibility to frailty or pathology. While genetics and environment are major factors driving variable rates of aging, additional complexity arises because different organs, tissues, and cell types are intrinsically heterogeneous and exhibit different aging trajectories normally or in response to the stresses of the aging process (e.g., damage accumulation). Tackling the heterogeneity of aging requires new and specialized tools (e.g., single-cell analyses, mass spectrometry-based approaches, and advanced imaging) to identify novel signatures of aging across scales. Cutting-edge computational approaches are then needed to integrate these disparate datasets and elucidate network interactions between known aging hallmarks. There is also a need for improved, human cell-based models of aging to ensure that basic research findings are relevant to human aging and healthspan interventions. The San Diego Nathan Shock Center (SD-NSC) provides access to cutting-edge scientific resources to facilitate the study of the heterogeneity of aging in general and to promote the use of novel human cell models of aging. The center also has a robust Research Development Core that funds pilot projects on the heterogeneity of aging and organizes innovative training activities, including workshops and a personalized mentoring program, to help investigators new to the aging field succeed. Finally, the SD-NSC participates in outreach activities to educate the general community about the importance of aging research and promote the need for basic biology of aging research in particular.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.