Evidence mapPaperPMID 42342910Full record

ReviewNature aging2026

Hierarchical endpoints and win statistics for geromedicine trials.

Mahmoud Abdellatif, Yevgeniy Kim, Guido Kroemer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature aging, 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.

Mahmoud AbdellatifDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. Mahmoud.abdellatif@medunigraz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5042-9054
Yevgeniy KimDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Guido KroemerEquipe labellisée par la Ligue contre le cancer, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Inserm U1138, Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France. Kroemer@orange.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9334-4405

Funding

Austrian Science Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung) 10.55776/COE14Austrian Science Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung) 10.55776/I6931
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Geroscience has advanced rapidly, yet its clinical translation remains limited. A central barrier is the lack of trial outcomes that capture the multidimensional effects of geroprotective interventions while meeting clinical and regulatory standards. Mortality is objective and regulatorily salient but often impractical. By contrast, surrogate measures of healthspan improve feasibility and may better reflect the quality of extended life, but they are generally considered soft endpoints that require further validation. Here, we propose hierarchical composite endpoints using time-to-worst-event analysis as a pragmatic and scientifically sound compromise. Participant pairs are compared using win statistics according to a prespecified clinical hierarchy, in which more severe and objective clinical events are prioritized, while health surrogates and biomarkers contribute information at lower tiers. When outcome selection, ordering and tie rules are clinically and mechanistically justified and agreed with regulators, this approach may improve geromedicine trial efficiency and allow overall treatment effects to be captured without compromising clinical priorities.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationBiomarkersHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID42342910

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.