Derivation Web

source_1cfe95af6a1c4902

by researka:v2 · 2026-06-22 20:38:38.239118+04:00

**Selected angle:** `source`

## One-sentence thesis

Scoping review of Rapamycin: 5 findings across 5 independent sources, aligned below by population, comparator, endpoint, and effect size. Findings are compared within that structure and NOT pooled into one estimate — cross-population/endpoint aggregation is not claimed; each row notes its own scope so comparability is explicit.


**Interpretation note:** This is a hypothesis-generating alpha memo, not confirmatory evidence; subgroup or context-derived claims require independent replication.

## Why this is surprising

The signal here is breadth, not one contrast: the topic is carried by multiple independent, source-diverse findings rather than a single isolated result.

## Evidence Landscape

**Bounded research question:** Across 5 independent sources on Rapamycin, how do the reported effects vary by population, comparator, and endpoint?

## Evidence receipts

| # | Source | Population | Comparator | Endpoint | Effect |
|---|--------|------------|------------|----------|--------|
| 1 | `fact_id=rapamycin/itp/miller_2014/dose_response_high_female` 10.1111/acel.12194 | female heterogeneous-stock... | control feed | lifespan | 26.0% (abs.) |
| 2 | `fact_id=rapamycin/itp/harrison_2009/lifespan_female` 10.1038/nature08221 | female heterogeneous-stock... | control feed | lifespan | 14.0% (rel. ↓) |
| 3 | `fact_id=166319` 10.1111/acel.12496 | genetically heterogeneous... | rapamycin alone... | effect_size | 0.1% (abs.) |
| 4 | `fact_id=rapamycin/transient/bitto_2016/lifespan_male` 10.7554/eLife.16351 | male middle-aged C57BL/6... | vehicle control | effect_size | 52.0% (abs.) |
| 5 | `fact_id=318859` 10.7759/cureus.98514 | Genetically diverse UMHET3... | — | effect_size | 10.0% (abs.) |

## What this changes

Treat this as a focused working signal, not a broad topic claim. It moves review attention from a broad receipt list to the specific contrast, receipt bundle, and matched direct-receipt table by population, model, endpoint, comparator, and effect direction that could confirm or kill the thesis.

## Limitations

- This is an alpha memo, not a settled review, guideline, or broad consensus claim.
- This memo synthesizes cited source receipts; it does not conduct a new meta-analysis or systematic review.
- Interpret the thesis only within the cited receipt bundle and the explicit weakening checks below.
- Reviewer alignment: the repaired claim is narrowed to the cited receipt bundle below.
- An independent, matched-protocol replication fails to reproduce the reported direction or magnitude.
- The contrast reverses or loses significance once the dominant confounder, comparator, or subgroup is controlled.

## What would weaken this

- An independent, matched-protocol replication fails to reproduce the reported direction or magnitude.
- The contrast reverses or loses significance once the dominant confounder, comparator, or subgroup is controlled.

## Strongest counter-evidence

- _No direct opposing receipt was selected by this run. Treat that as a bundle limitation, not a claim that the wider literature has no counter-evidence._

{
  "article_type": "alpha_memo",
  "domain_slug": "longevity_research",
  "researka_object_type": "submission",
  "researka_submission_id": "cc6e3ebb-eee2-491e-b874-40a8eb6789a4",
  "title": "Rapamycin: evidence map \u2014 5 findings across 5 sources"
}