Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40323495›Full record

ReviewBiogerontology2025

SENS vs. the hallmarks of aging: competing visions, shared challenges.

Pablo García-Barranquero, Saúl Pérez-González

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biogerontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The success-failure inversion in modern medicine.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
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.

Pablo García-BarranqueroUniversity of Malaga, Málaga, Spain. pablogarcia@uma.es.
Saúl Pérez-GonzálezUniversity of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation PID2021-125936NB-I00Valencian Department of Education, Universities, and Employment CIGE/2023/16
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aging research is often framed within pluralistic frameworks that emphasize cellular and molecular damage processes. Among the most influential are Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS), which aims to counteract biological decline through targeted damage repair, and the Hallmarks of Aging (HoA), which seeks to identify fundamental mechanisms underlying this process. Both proposals, although diverse, significantly influence contemporary approaches to the challenges posed by aging. However, despite extensive discussion, we contend that key conceptual and methodological aspects remain insufficiently explored. This paper seeks to advance the debate by critically analyzing and comparing their foundational goals, theoretical premises, and research frameworks. Specifically, we examine their definitions of aging, perspectives on health and disease, approaches to scientific evidence and causal interventions, and communications strategies. In doing so, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding and more nuanced assessment of both SENS and the HoA.

Indexed as

AgingCellular SenescenceAnimalsHumansAgingGeroscienceHallmarks of agingMechanismSENS

Identifiers

PMID40323495
PMCPMC12052809

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.