Are "Anti-Aging Medicine" and "Successful Aging" Two Sides of the Same Coin? Views of Anti-Aging Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article analyzes data from interviews with anti-aging practitioners to evaluate how their descriptions of the work they do, their definitions of aging, and their goals for their patients intersect with gerontological views of "successful aging." METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of 31 anti-aging practitioners drawn from the directory of the American Academy for Anti-Aging Medicine. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of the transcripts demonstrate that practitioners' descriptions of their goals, intentionally or unintentionally, mimic the dominant models of "successful aging." These include lowered risk of disease and disability, maintenance of high levels of mental and physical function, and continuing social engagement. Yet, the means and modes of achieving these goals differ markedly between the two groups, as do the messages that each group puts forth in defending their positions. DISCUSSION: Anti-aging practitioners' adoption of the rhetoric of successful aging reflects the success of successful aging models in shaping popular conceptions of what aging is and an ethos of management and control over the aging process. The overlap between anti-aging and successful aging rhetoric also highlights some of the most problematic social, cultural, and economic consequences of efforts made to reconceptualize old age.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".