Came across a paper summarizing survey results from survey questions formulated during an aging symposium. Searched here to see if it's been posted... it's not been posted.
https://doi.org/10.1...mad.2020.111316 "Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework" (2020)
You can get the full text through sci-hub. The questions posed and the summary of results with the strongest agreement/disagreement scores (i.e. most consensus) are useful in giving discussions in this forum context. "Aging cannot and should not be measured by a single metric because it is multi-dimensional and heterogeneous" had the strongest agreement consensus. "Aging proceeds uniformly across tissues" had the strongest disagreement consensus. The 6th strongest consensus question gave some insight to mechanisms and a strong-ish consensus lean to agreement to "Some combination of the nine hallmarks (Lopez-Otin et al. 2013) or the seven pillars (Kennedy et al 2014) does a relative comprehensive job of describing the mechanisms of aging." Here are links to those two articles:https://www.scienced...09286741401366X "Geroscience: Linking Aging to Chronic Disease" (2014) The seven pillars reference.
https://www.scienced...092867413006454 "The Hallmarks of Aging" (2013) These authors have updated this work with this reference:
https://www.scienced...092867422013770 "Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe" (2022) They added "disabled macroautophagy, chronic inflammation, and dysbiosis" to their original list.
The survey result paper is very thorough in describing demographics of respondents, definition discussions, question formulation etc. I found their violin plots of aging mechanism class (damage accumulation, maladaptation, adaptation, and homeodynamic dysregulation) useful for classifying the papers I've been reading. The survey paper ends with some thoughts about how to focus discussions toward more consensus.
