Gender-specific effects of pro-longevity interventions in Drosophila
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in lifespan are well recognized in the majority of animal species. For example, in male versus female Drosophila melanogaster there are significant differences in behavior and physiology. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of gender differences in responses to pro-longevity interventions in this model organism. Here we summarize the existing data on the effects of nutritional and pharmacological anti-aging interventions such as nutrition regimens, diet and dietary supplementation on the lifespan of male and female Drosophila. We demonstrate that males and females have different sensitivities to interventions and that the effects are highly dependent on genetic background, mating, dose and exposure duration. Our work highlights the importance of understanding the mechanisms that underlie the gender-specific effect of anti-aging manipulations. This will provide insight into how these benefits may be valuable for elucidating the primary physiological and molecular targets involved in aging and lifespan determination.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it