The Role of Systemic Filtrating Organs in Aging and Their Potential in Rejuvenation Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in aging studies brought about by heterochronic parabiosis suggest that agingmight be a reversable process that is affected by changes in the systemic milieu of organs andcells. Given the broadness of such a systemic approach, research to date has mainly questioned theinvolvement of "shared organs" versus "circulating factors". However, in the absence of a clearunderstanding of the chronological development of aging and a unified platform to evaluate thesuccesses claimed by specific rejuvenation methods, current literature on this topic remains scattered.Herein, aging is assessed from an engineering standpoint to isolate possible aging potentiators via ajuxtaposition between biological and mechanical systems. Such a simplification provides a generalframework for future research in the field and examines the involvement of various factors in aging.Based on this simplified overview, the kidney as a filtration organ is clearly implicated, for the firsttime, with the aging phenomenon, necessitating a re-evaluation of current rejuvenation studies tountangle the extent of its involvement and its possible role as a potentiator in aging. Based on thesefindings, the review concludes with potential translatable and long-term therapeutics for aging whileoffering a critical view of rejuvenation methods proposed to date.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".