MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969760870 · doi:10.4161/nucl.27929

The fine line between lifespan extension and shortening in response to caloric restriction

2014· review· en· W1969760870 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleus · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCaloric theoryBiologyTelomereAutophagyMitochondrial DNASenescenceGenome instabilityLongevityDNA damageGeneticsCell biologyDNAEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caloric restriction (CR) is generally linked to lifespan extension in various organisms and may limit age-associated diseases. Processes through which caloric restriction promotes lifespan include obesity-countering weight loss, increased DNA repair, control of ribosomal and telomeric DNA repeats, mitochondrial regulation, activation of antioxidants, and protective autophagy. Several of these protective cellular processes are linked to the suppression of TOR (target of rapamycin) or the activation of sirtuins. In stark contrast, CR fails to extend or even shortens lifespan in certain settings. CR-dependent lifespan shortening is linked to weight loss in the non-obese, mitochondrial hyperactivity, genomic inflexibility, and several other processes. Deciphering the balance between positive and negative effects of CR is critical to understanding its ultimate impact on aging. This knowledge is especially needed in order to fulfil the promise of using CR or its mimetic drugs to counteract age-associated diseases and unhealthy aging.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it