About the Evidence Atlas
Every longevity intervention we could identify, graded A to C by the strength of the human evidence behind it — including the ones that failed, and including the ones we work on ourselves.
The longevity field has a presentation problem. A compound with two large randomised human trials and a compound with one promising mouse study are described in the same register and sold at the same confidence. The reader has no way to tell them apart without reading the primary literature, which is what the marketing depends on.
The Evidence Atlas is the working reference built to close that gap: 73 interventions across ten mechanistic categories, each carrying an explicit evidence tier, a summary of what is actually known, and the trials underneath it. It is the same reference used internally to decide what our own platform pursues, published rather than kept private — because a graded list is only credible if the grading is applied to one's own programmes too.
Every gene therapy entry in this Atlas, including the targets our own programmes are built on, is graded Level C. Metformin, caloric restriction, cardiorespiratory fitness, resistance training and sleep are graded Level A. A reference that ranked our proprietary work highest would not be a reference.
How grading works
Strong evidence. Human randomised controlled trials, or large, consistent, long-term human cohort data with a plausible mechanism. Interventions a physician can act on now. Most are unglamorous.
Moderate evidence. Human data limited by size, duration, endpoint or consistency. A rational basis to act exists; certainty does not.
Emerging evidence. Mechanism, animal data, or early human work without controlled outcome evidence. Almost all gene therapy currently sits here. A compelling mechanism is a reason to run a trial, not a reason to treat.
What this is not
It is not medical advice, and the tier assigned to an intervention says nothing about whether it is appropriate for a particular person.
The projected ranges are illustrative, not predictive.
It is not exhaustive. Absence from the Atlas is not a judgement about an intervention.
It is a snapshot. Evidence changes and tiers change with it. Each record carries the date it was last reviewed.
Editorial policy
Failed and null trials are included. An evidence base that reports only successes is a marketing document.
Trials without a corresponding registry record are marked as having none, rather than presented alongside registered work.
New trials surfaced by the automated ClinicalTrials.gov scan enter an editorial review queue and do not publish to the Atlas automatically.