The papers on this page are not about one molecule. They are the reference works the rest of the Data Center is measured against: the hallmarks-of-ageing framework that supplement marketing quotes, the DNA-methylation clocks behind biological-age claims, the expert consensus on which biomarkers may legitimately serve as endpoints, the analytical work showing how far a label can sit from what is in the capsule, and the small number of trials run on complete finished products rather than isolated ingredients.
Narrative conceptual review, not a study. It is the canonical framework paper the entire consumer longevity category quotes, so it belongs in the corpus as the reference definition of what a hallmark is — but a framework is not evidence that any product improves a hallmark in a human being.
Narrative conceptual review. This is the version of the framework that current twelve-hallmark marketing claims refer to, so the corpus needs it to adjudicate those claims — but the paper itself contains no intervention data.
Methods paper developing and externally validating a biomarker across six datasets, anchored on a one-of-a-kind 1,037-person birth cohort with four assessment waves over two decades. Strong for what it claims — a reliable measure of pace of ageing — and explicitly not an intervention study.
Sourcedoi:10.7554/eLife.73420
Formal expert consensus statement from a large multinational academic panel, published in a leading gerontology journal. Consensus is a legitimate and useful evidence class for the question it answers — which biomarkers are appropriate to use as endpoints — but it is expert opinion, not primary data, and does not validate any specific biomarker against a clinical outcome.
Registered, randomised, quadruple-masked, placebo-controlled six-month trial of a clearly identified finished product, run by a university cardiovascular medicine group with a prespecified primary endpoint. That is the strongest completed finished-product design in the eight-brand longevity powder set. It is held at tier 2 rather than tier 1 because results were a preprint rather than a peer-reviewed paper at the research cutoff, attrition reached 29.5 percent, the endpoints are vascular surrogates rather than clinical events, the retail and trial formulations differ, and the product manufacturer funded the work.
A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the exact finished product with prespecified validated instruments, a prespecified MCID-based responder analysis and a published null safety endpoint. That design is materially better than the ingredient-level evidence most of this category offers, and it is unusual for a consumer supplement to run one at all. It is held at tier 3 rather than tier 2 because the sample is small, the analysis is per-protocol rather than intention-to-treat, all primary outcomes are patient-reported, the study product doses are withheld as proprietary, the report is sponsor-published rather than peer-reviewed, and the ethics-approval reference was still a placeholder in the version reviewed.
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot of the exact finished product with a blinded independent laboratory measuring an objective biomarker — a stronger measurement design than patient-reported outcomes. Held at tier 3 because n=19 completers is very small, the primary complete-dataset comparison did not reach conventional significance (p = 0.09), the statistically significant result depends on a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier, capillary self-sampling introduces pre-analytical variability, and the report is sponsor-published rather than peer-reviewed. The report itself describes the findings as hypothesis-generating.
Blinded analytical study using a purpose-developed and validated HPLC coupled to triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry method, with recovery, precision, accuracy and matrix-effect validation reported, and independent academic authorship with a declared absence of competing interests. Strong within its scope — label accuracy for a snapshot of products — and silent on efficacy.
