ArticleGeroScience2022
Endpoints for geroscience clinical trials: health outcomes, biomarkers, and biologic age.
Article in GeroScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Biological Versus Technical Reliability of Epigenetic Clocks and Implications for Disease Prognosis and Intervention Response.Aging cell · 2026Article
- Bioactive Compounds from Medicinal and Edible Plants for Anti-Aging: A Systematic Review of Molecular Mechanisms, Delivery Systems, and Clinical Evidence.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Hierarchical endpoints and win statistics for geromedicine trials.Nature aging · 2026Review
- Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of sixteen markers of biological aging from the Berlin Aging Study II.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Clonal hematopoiesis, inflammaging, and vascular disease: mechanisms, risk stratification, and therapeutic frontiers in older adults.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Observational
- Turning back time: a comprehensive list of interventions that decrease next-generation epigenetic aging clocks in humans.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Correlation Between the Proportion of Senescence-Associated β-Galactosidase-Stained CD8+ T Cells and Age: A Cross-Sectional Study in Japan.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Review
- The advantages and challenges of disability-free survival as outcome measure in clinical studies.Nature aging · 2025Article
- Selecting Appropriate Clinical Trial Endpoints for Geroscience Trials: A Path Towards Consensus.Research square · 2025Article
- Public alignment with longevity biotechnology: an analysis of framing in surveys and opinion studies.Biogerontology · 2024Review
- Challenges and recommendations for the translation of biomarkers of aging.Nature aging · 2024Review
- Targeting the epigenetically older individuals for geroprotective trials: the use of DNA methylation clocks.Biogerontology · 2024Review
- NIA Research Centers Collaborative Network.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- Article
- Validation of biomarkers of aging.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Geroscience and pathology: a new frontier in understanding age-related diseases.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Treatments that target fundamental processes of aging are expected to delay several aging-related conditions simultaneously. Testing the efficacy of these treatments for potential anti-aging benefits will require clinical trials with endpoints that reflect the potential benefits of slowing processes of aging. There are several potential types of endpoints to capture the benefits of slowing a process of aging, and a consensus is needed to standardize and compare the results of these trials and to guide the analysis of observational data to support trial planning. Using biomarkers instead of clinical outcomes would substantially reduce the size and the duration of clinical trials. This requires validation of surrogate markers showing that treatment induced change in the marker reliably predicts the magnitude of change in the clinical outcome. The surrogate marker must also reflect the biological mechanism for the effect of treatment on the clinical outcome. "Biological age" is a superficially attractive marker for such trials. However, it is essential to establish that treatment induced change in biological age reliably predict the magnitude of benefits in the clinical outcome. Reaching consensus on clinical outcomes for geroscience trials and then validating potential surrogate biomarkers requires time, effort, and coordination that will be worthwhile to develop surrogate outcomes that can be trusted to efficiently test the value of many anti-aging treatments under development.
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.