ABOUT & TRUST
How Longevity Research Review selects topics, evaluates claims and separates evidence from promotion.
Longevity Research Review covers longevity science, aging biology, interventions, biomarkers, systems health, supplements and a retained oral-health library.
Our editorial goal is not to make every topic sound actionable. It is to explain what the evidence can support.
Topic selection
We prioritize topics that are useful for understanding:
- mechanisms of aging;
- human longevity and healthspan research;
- interventions with meaningful scientific or public interest;
- biomarkers and measurement;
- major physiological systems relevant to aging;
- supplements commonly discussed in longevity;
- oral health and function across the lifespan;
- commercial dental decisions where existing reader demand remains strong.
Popularity alone is not evidence of importance, but high public interest can justify a review when claims need clarification.
Evidence before narrative
We build conclusions from the available evidence rather than selecting evidence to fit a preferred story.
Where possible, articles should distinguish:
- randomized trials;
- non-randomized interventions;
- prospective and retrospective observational studies;
- systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
- animal studies;
- cell and mechanistic studies;
- expert consensus or clinical guidance.
The article should make clear when a conclusion depends mainly on low-certainty or preclinical evidence.
Human claims require human evidence
Animal and mechanistic studies can explain biological plausibility.
They do not by themselves establish that an intervention improves human lifespan, healthspan, disease risk or function.
When an article makes a claim about people, human outcome data receive greater weight.
Association is not causation
Observational studies can identify important patterns, but confounding, reverse causation, selection effects and measurement error can change interpretation.
We avoid language that turns an association into a proven causal relationship without stronger evidence.
Surrogate outcomes
A change in a biomarker is not automatically a meaningful health benefit.
Articles should distinguish biomarker movement from outcomes such as disease events, disability, quality of life, function or mortality.
Magnitude matters
A statistically significant result can still be small or clinically unimportant.
Where data allow, we prefer absolute effects, practical magnitude and confidence intervals over headline-friendly relative changes alone.
Uncertainty belongs in the article
Important limitations should not be hidden in a final paragraph.
If a study is small, short, unblinded, industry-funded, based on a selected population or uses an exploratory endpoint, that context should appear close to the relevant claim.
Conflicts of interest
Funding and author conflicts do not automatically invalidate research.
They are factors to consider alongside study design, transparency, replication and independent evidence.
Commercial product content
Product reviews and buying guides may contain affiliate links.
Commercial relationships do not determine evidence grading or guarantee positive placement.
Product pages should distinguish:
- objective specifications;
- manufacturer claims;
- evidence-supported differences;
- subjective usability;
- price/value judgments.
Updating articles
Important articles may be revised when:
- major trials are published;
- systematic reviews materially change the evidence picture;
- safety information changes;
- guidelines or regulatory status change;
- products are discontinued or reformulated;
- factual errors are identified.
The update should preserve the integrity of the article rather than silently rewriting history to make an old prediction look correct.
Corrections
Material errors should be corrected.
See the Corrections Policy for how readers can report issues and how significant changes should be documented.
AI-assisted production
AI tools may be used to assist with research organization, drafting, comparison, coding, formatting, quality control or repetitive editorial work.
AI output is not treated as a primary source.
Claims that matter should be grounded in source material appropriate to the topic, and generated text should be reviewed for factual accuracy, unsupported inference, citation mismatch and overstatement.
Medical boundaries
The publication does not provide individualized diagnosis or treatment.
Editorial content should not instruct a reader to ignore professional advice, stop a prescribed medication, or substitute an article for individualized care.
See our Medical Disclaimer.
Independence from hype
Longevity is unusually vulnerable to overstatement because the most interesting claims often arrive before definitive human evidence.
Our default is therefore conservative:
promising is not proven; plausible is not effective; associated is not causal; newer is not automatically better.