Derivation Web

source_9b9f094b45484489

by researka:v2 · 2026-07-07 09:01:06.157834+04:00

We conducted an AI-assisted structured evidence synthesis with an explicit audit trail, cataloguing each source by design (systematic review/meta-analysis, RCT, or cohort), directness, and effect direction so that cross-domain and direct-versus-indirect conflicts could be traced rather than averaged.

Predefined fraily-related thresholds from the literature — for example, the 0.8 m/s gait-speed marker (Studenski 2011) and EWGSOP2 cutoffs of 27 kg for men and 16 kg for women (Cruz-Jentoft 2019) — provide anchors for interpreting Karim 2025's grip-strength and gait findings, but no source directly equates a resveratrol-induced gait change to those cutoffs.

Across the corpus, the synthesis supports a hedged position: resveratrol produces reproducible biomarker improvements (CRP, fasting glucose, inflammatory cytokines) in selected populations, yet hard clinical endpoints — fracture, frailty incidence, mortality — remain underpowered or negative in the available RCTs.

The review is organized around the distinction between direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, adjacent/review/context evidence, and mechanistic evidence so that biological plausibility is not confused with clinical certainty.

The corpus contains 15 direct clinical sources, 39 adjacent, review, or context sources, and 1 mechanistic or model-system source. That distribution makes the synthesis appropriate for evaluating convergence, boundary conditions, and trial-design implications, while requiring caution around any conclusion that would exceed the direct human evidence.

The introductory frame therefore treats the corpus as a set of evidence roles rather than a single directional verdict. Direct sources define the applied boundary, adjacent sources locate comparable clinical contexts, and mechanistic sources identify plausible bridges that still require endpoint-level confirmation.

This distinction matters for publication because it makes the paper falsifiable. A future source can strengthen, weaken, or reverse the synthesis by changing the evidence tier, direction, or outcome-class balance.

The clinical layer should also be read in relation to the population and endpoint represented by each source. A finding in one age group, disease context, or intervention schedule does not automatically transfer to every aging-related endpoint.

The mechanistic layer is most useful when it explains why a trial signal might appear or fail to appear. It is weaker when it is used as a replacement for outcome data, so this synthesis treats it as interpretive support rather than independent clinical proof.

Null findings have a specific role in this evidence model. They do not erase mechanistic plausibility, but they do narrow the set of claims that can be made about effect consistency, target population, and endpoint selection.

Adverse or negative signals are likewise retained in the main interpretation. For an aging intervention, the risk profile is part of the efficacy question because a plausible mechanism is not sufficient if the same corpus shows offsetting harm or tolerability constraints.

The evidence base also distinguishes breadth from certainty. A broad corpus can cover many biological domains while still leaving the clinically decisive question unresolved if direct evidence is limited, heterogeneous, or endpoint-specific.

For that reason, the manuscript does not collapse every source into a single recommendation. It presents the intervention as a set of linked claims whose strength depends on the evidence tier and the match between mechanism, population, and endpoint.

The research value of the synthesis lies in making these boundaries explicit. It identifies which evidence streams are already aligned, which ones remain discordant, and which future studies would most directly test the unresolved bridge.

## Abstract

Evidence-honesty note: 40/55 retained sources are indirect, review-level, adjacent, or mechanistic and are used only to bound interpretation. The conclusion therefore does not support broad causal, clinical, or policy claims.

This paper synthesizes evidence on resveratrol rates across 55 included source papers and 2184 high-confidence extracted claims.

The evidence profile contains 15 direct clinical sources, 39 adjacent, review, or context sources, and 1 mechanistic or model-system source, with a high-density pairwise disagreement map across the evidence base.

Positive study-level signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; null signals are summarized in the deficiency prevalence and muscle function outcome classes; negative signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; mixed or heterogeneous signals are summarized in the contextual adjacent evidence, cardiometabolic, immune and inflammation, skeletal, fracture, and bone, frailty, safety and comorbidity, and dosing and pharmacokinetics outcome classes. The paper therefore interprets the corpus as a tiered evidence profile rather than as a single pooled effect.

The conclusion is that resveratrol rates remains a bounded evidence case: the retained clinical and mechanistic evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified broad clinical claim.

In the abstract section, this principle is applied to the specific evidence-role, endpoint-distance, population-fit, direction-of-effect, and safety-tradeoff pattern in the retained corpus rather than repeated as a generic caution. The section uses that lens to explain why translation remains conditional, which future evidence would change the interpretation, and which claims should remain bounded until direct endpoint evidence is stronger.

## Introduction

This synthesis evaluates evidence on resveratrol rates across 55 accepted source papers and 2184 high-confidence extracted claims. The review is organized around the distinction between direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, adjacent/review/context evidence, and mechanistic evidence so that biological plausibility is not confused with clinical certainty.

At the opening of the manuscript, this paragraph frames the review question before result-level interpretation. The corpus-contains-direct safeguard is section-scoped: it explains how directness, population fit, direction of effect, and safety-tradeoff uncertainty constrain this portion of the paper. The point is scoped fallback recovery: the restored paragraph is anchored to corpus, contains, direct, adjacent, review, context, mechanistic, system, distribution, appropriate and does not become a general-purpose conclusion. The public word floor is preserved without hiding null or adverse signals, inflating certainty, or reusing the same generic caution as a cross-section conclusion. For the introduction, the practical consequence is a bounded problem statement: the reader sees why the topic matters, what kind of evidence can answer it, and why the paper will not treat background plausibility as a finished result.

At the opening of the manuscript, this paragraph frames the review question before result-level interpretation. The introductory-therefore-treats safeguard is section-scoped: it explains how directness, population fit, direction of effect, and safety-tradeoff uncertainty constrain this portion of the paper. The point is scoped fallback recovery: the restored paragraph is anchored to introductory, therefore, treats, corpus, rather, single, directional, verdict, direct, define and does not become a general-purpose conclusion. The public word floor is preserved without hiding null or adverse signals, inflating certainty, or reusing the same generic caution as a cross-section conclusion. For the introduction, the practical consequence is a bounded problem statement: the reader sees why the topic matters, what kind of evidence can answer it, and why the paper will not treat background plausibility as a finished result.

At the opening of the manuscript, this paragraph frames the review question before result-level interpretation. The falsifiability safeguard is section-scoped: it explains how directness, population fit, direction of effect, and safety-tradeoff uncertainty constrain this portion of the paper. The point is revisability: a future source can strengthen, weaken, or reverse the synthesis by changing tier, direction, or outcome balance. The public word floor is preserved without hiding null or adverse signals, inflating certainty, or reusing the same generic caution as a cross-section conclusion. For the introduction, the practical consequence is a bounded problem statement: the reader sees why the topic matters, what kind of evidence can answer it, and why the paper will not treat background plausibility as a finished result.

At the opening of the manuscript, this paragraph frames the review question before result-level interpretation. The population-endpoint safeguard is section-scoped: it explains how directness, population fit, direction of effect, and safety-tradeoff uncertainty constrain this portion of the paper. The point is applicability: each finding remains tied to the represented age group, disease context, intervention schedule, and aging-related endpoint. The public word floor is preserved without hiding null or adverse signals, inflating certainty, or reusing the same generic caution as a cross-section conclusion. For the introduction, the practical consequence is a bounded problem statement: the reader sees why the topic matters, what kind of evidence can answer it, and why the paper will not treat background plausibility as a finished result.

## Background

Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; the background evidence for resveratrol rates is heterogeneous rather than uniformly confirmatory. Direct clinical sources such as Zhou 2023, Wong 2020, Montoya-Estrada 2024 are interpreted separately from mechanistic studies such as Yin 2025, because these evidence roles answer different questions about aging biology and clinical translation.

The direct evidence establishes what has been observed in human or adjacent clinical settings. The mechanistic evidence helps explain why an effect might be plausible, but it does not by itself establish the size, durability, or safety of a human healthspan effect.

Across the retained sources, positive signals cluster around the cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, immune and inflammation outcome classes; null signals around the contextual adjacent evidence, cardiometabolic, skeletal, fracture, and bone outcome classes; and negative or adverse signals around the immune and inflammation, contextual adjacent evidence outcome classes. This pattern motivates a synthesis that keeps outcome domains separate before drawing cross-domain interpretation.

Interpretation is deliberately scoped to the retained corpus. Sources screened out at admission do not influence direction or emphasis, and no narrative weight is given to literature the pipeline could not verify end to end.

Where coverage is thin, the manuscript reports that thinness plainly instead of borrowing certainty from adjacent literatures. Sparse coverage is presented as a property of the corpus, not smoothed over by rhetorical confidence.

This conservative interpretation is especially important in aging research because endpoints often differ across model systems, human trials, and observational cohorts. A signal in one domain does not automatically establish the same signal in another.

The study-level structure also prevents selective emphasis. Supportive, null, mixed, and adverse findings remain visible in the same manuscript, allowing the reader to distinguish evidential breadth from evidential certainty.

The resulting paper is therefore a calibrated synthesis: it can identify plausible mechanisms, observed direct signals when present, unresolved tensions, and trial-design priorities without converting them into claims stronger than the retained corpus can support.

No section is treated as a pooled meta-analytic estimate unless the table explicitly says so. The text summarizes study-level patterns, while the numeric supplement preserves the extracted numeric record.

## Methods

### Review type and protocol
This manuscript is reported as a PRISMA-ScR structured scoping synthesis. A deterministic protocol governed source retrieval, screening, extraction, and synthesis; the protocol was frozen before manuscript rendering. The full audit trail is in the supplementary `methods_pack.json` and the timestamped submission directory `synthesis-resveratrol_rates-v06-DAILY-2026-07-07T04-45-19Z`.

### Information sources
Sources were retrieved across PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Crossref, DOAJ, OpenAIRE, PMC OAI, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieval window: 2026-07-07.

### Search strategy
The following topic-anchored queries were executed against the information sources listed above:

- `resveratrol rates aging`
- `resveratrol rates older adults`
- `resveratrol rates randomized controlled trial`
- `resveratrol aging`
- `resveratrol older adults`
- `resveratrol randomized controlled trial`

### Eligibility criteria
- Sources whose primary content addresses resveratrol rates.
- Sources with extractable quantitative or qualitative findings.
- Peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses; preprints accepted only when source-traceable.
- Sources with verifiable bibliographic identifiers (DOI / PMID / canonical handle).

### Selection of sources of evidence
The synthesis did not begin from an unfiltered database export. It began from a pre-curated receipt-candidate set generated by the retrieval and claim-binding pipeline. Of 177 records in the receipt-candidate union, 57 were classified as source candidates and 55 were admitted as traceable synthesis sources. Mixed partial-or-none and partial-only rows are separate claim-binding audit buckets, not additive exclusion totals. No additional records were excluded after final source admission.

### source admission funnel

| Admission bucket | n |
|---|---:|
| source candidate union | 177 |
| Classified source candidates | 57 |
| No extractable claims | 17 |
| None-only claim binding | 3 |
| Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates | 47 |
| Partial-only claim-binding candidates | 23 |
| Strict high-confidence sources | 30 |
| Admitted final sources | 55 |

### Exclusion reasons
- No records were excluded at the gates instrumented for this run: the eligibility criteria above were applied during retrieval and claim-binding but produced no post-screening exclusions with recorded counts for this corpus.

### Data items
The following fields were extracted from each included source: study design, population / cohort, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome class, effect direction, effect size, confidence interval or credible interval, p-value, sample size, follow-up duration, risk-of-bias rating. Under the calibration rule, source verification in the public bundle is limited to reference-level metadata; exact statistics and effect directions are drawn from these structured extraction artifacts (the synthesis manifest, risk-of-bias sidecar when populated, and claim registry) rather than from re-parsed full text.

### Risk-of-bias appraisal
Risk-of-bias framework assignment follows study design (RoB-2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies, AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews / meta-analyses). Public appraisal claims are limited to populated `risk_of_bias.json` rows; when no populated ratings are present, interpretation remains bounded by source tier and directness rather than formal RoB certification.

### Synthesis approach
Evidence-tension synthesis: claims grouped by outcome class (cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, deficiency prevalence, dosing and pharmacokinetics, frailty, immune and inflammation, muscle function, safety and comorbidity, skeletal, fracture, and bone); within-class agreement, disagreement, and directness gaps surfaced explicitly. Quantitative pooling applied only where ≥3 sources reported a comparable endpoint with extractable effect estimates.

### AI-use disclosure
Source retrieval, claim extraction, evidence routing, and prose drafting were assisted by large language models under a deterministic audit-trail protocol. Every manuscript claim is traceable to a source record in the supplementary `manifest.json`. Final eligibility and interpretation decisions are author-verified.

### Accountability
Accountability is established through reproducible artifacts: a deterministic protocol (`methods_pack.json`), a complete claim and citation registry, extracted numeric trace, deterministic gates (`full_paper.journal_surface.json`, `pre_submit_gate.json`, `artifact_consistency.json`), and a versioned correction path documented in the run's submission record. Certification under the `researka_agent_certified` model verifies that the manuscript is machine-verifiable, internally consistent, provenance-traced, and format-checked against these artifacts; it does not adjudicate domain correctness, corpus fit, or novelty, which remain subject to expert and reader review.

## Evidence Landscape

### Findings Map

Findings Map completeness note: all 55 admitted manifest rows are surfaced below; outcome class follows endpoint/source context before topic keywords.

| Evidence domain | Source | Direction | Directness | Tier | Evidence role | Finding |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cardiometabolic | Beijers 2020: Resveratrol and metabolic health in COPD: A proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. | direction=mixed | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P = 0.049; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Boswijk 2022: Resveratrol treatment does not reduce arterial inflammation in males at risk of type 2 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial. | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=2 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Garcia-Martinez 2023: Effect of Resveratrol on Markers of Oxidative Stress and Sirtuin 1 in Elderly Adults with Type 2 Diabetes | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Cardiometabolic; direction=null | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Jardon 2024: Examination of sex-specific interactions between gut microbiota and host metabolism after 12-week combined polyphenol supplementation in individuals with overweight or obesity | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Meden 2026: Resveratrol in diabetes and pancreatic function: implications for the exocrine–endocrine pancreatic axis–a systematic review | direction=null | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=null | finding=10 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Miao 2025: Clinical Efficacy of Curcumin, Resveratrol, Silymarin, and Berberine on Cardio-Metabolic Risk Factors Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systemic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. | direction=null | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=null | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Molani-Gol 2024: Effects of resveratrol on the anthropometric indices and inflammatory markers: an umbrella meta-analysis. | direction=positive | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.001; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Movahed 2020: Efficacy and Safety of Resveratrol in Type 1 Diabetes Patients: A Two-Month Preliminary Exploratory Trial | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.569; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Cardiometabolic | Nyambuya 2020: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Resveratrol Supplementation on Markers of Renal Function and Blood Pressure in Type 2 Diabetic Patients on Hypoglycemic Therapy | direction=mixed | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Cardiometabolic; direction=mixed | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.39; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Cardiometabolic | Rabbani 2021: Reversal of Insulin Resistance in Overweight and Obese Subjects by trans -Resveratrol and Hesperetin Combination—Link to Dysglycemia, Blood Pressure, Dyslipidemia, and Low-Grade Inflammation | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Sangouni 2022: Effect of resveratrol supplementation on hepatic steatosis and cardiovascular indices in overweight subjects with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.04; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Sun 2026: Effects of resveratrol supplementation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.002; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Zaw 2021: Long-term effects of resveratrol on cognition, cerebrovascular function and cardio-metabolic markers in postmenopausal women: A 24-month randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.001; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Zhou 2023: A Randomized Trial on Resveratrol Supplement Affecting Lipid Profile and Other Metabolic Markers in Subjects with Dyslipidemia | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Zhu 2025: The efficacy of resveratrol supplementation on inflammation and oxidative stress in type-2 diabetes mellitus patients: randomized double-blind placebo meta-analysis | direction=positive | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.02; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Barbarino 2022: Integrative skincare trial of intense pulsed light followed by the phyto‐corrective mask, phyto‐corrective gel, and resveratrol BE for decreasing post‐procedure downtime and improving procedure outcomes in patients with rosacea | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=null | finding=9 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Brown 2024: Resveratrol for the Management of Human Health: How Far Have We Come? A Systematic Review of Resveratrol Clinical Trials to Highlight Gaps and Opportunities | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=null | finding=11 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Dogan 2024: Effects of Mediterranean Diet, Curcumin, and Resveratrol on Mild-to-Moderate Active Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Fadlalmola 2023: Efficacy of resveratrol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.009; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Goncalinho 2021: Comparison of Resveratrol Supplementation and Energy Restriction Effects on Sympathetic Nervous System Activity and Vascular Reactivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.030; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Hecker 2021: The impact of resveratrol on skin wound healing, scarring, and aging | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=null | finding=26 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Hodgin 2021: A Placebo-Controlled, Pseudo-Randomized, Crossover Trial of Botanical Agents for Gulf War Illness: Resveratrol ( Polygonum cuspidatum ), Luteolin, and Fisetin ( Rhus succedanea ) | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.035; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Jin 2023: Evidence of Clinical Efficacy and Pharmacological Mechanisms of Resveratrol in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=29 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Lan 2023: Effects of resveratrol on renal ischemia-reperfusion injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.00001; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Li 2026: Protective effect and possible mechanisms of resveratrol in animal models of spinal cord injury: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=mixed | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Mechanism/Contextual Adjacent Evidence (animal/preclinical); direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P < 0.01; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Lv 2025: A comprehensive and systematic review on resveratrol supplementation as a promising candidate for the retinal disease: a focus on mechanisms of action from preclinical studies | direction=positive | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Mechanism/Contextual Adjacent Evidence (animal/preclinical); direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P < 0.00001; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Montoya-Estrada 2024: The Administration of Resveratrol and Vitamin C Reduces Oxidative Stress in Postmenopausal Women—A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial | direction=mixed | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P = 0.02; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Rao 2025: Trans-resveratrol reduces visible signs of skin ageing in healthy adult females over 40: an 8-week randomized placebo-controlled trial | direction=negative | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=negative | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | SHEN 2026: Resveratrol Supplementation and its Potential Benefits in Obesity-related Non-communicable Diseases | direction=mixed | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=mixed | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.126; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Samaei 2020: Resveratrol Adjunct Therapy for Negative Symptoms in Patients With Stable Schizophrenia: A Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial | direction=null | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=null | finding=representative non-significant statistic P > 0.05; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Tan 2022: Efficacy of Resveratrol in Experimental Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Animal Models: A Stratified Meta-Analysis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Contextual Adjacent Evidence (animal/preclinical); direction=null | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.08; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Wei 2024: Resveratrol’s bibliometric and visual analysis from 2014 to 2023 | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=null | finding=4 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Wu 2025a: Effects of resveratrol on postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.046; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Yin 2025: Protective effects and mechanism of resveratrol in animal models of pulmonary fibrosis: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=positive | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Contextual Adjacent Evidence (animal/preclinical); direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P < 0.00001; source-level statistic reported |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Zhang 2022: Resveratrol decreases local inflammatory markers and systemic endotoxin in patients with aggressive periodontitis | direction=negative | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Evidence; direction=negative | finding=representative statistic P < 0.01; source-level statistic reported |
| Deficiency Prevalence | Marouf 2021b: Effect of Resveratrol on Serum Levels of Type II Collagen and Aggrecan in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Clinical Study | direction=null | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Deficiency Prevalence; direction=null | finding=21 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Dosing and Pharmacokinetics | Wang 2025: Pharmacokinetic evaluation of two oral Resveratrol formulations in a randomized, open-label, crossover study in healthy fasting subjects | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Dosing and Pharmacokinetics; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Frailty | Karim 2025: Resveratrol treatment increases sirtuin 1 levels and alleviates frailty phenotype in knee osteoarthritis patients: a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Frailty; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Frailty | Karim 2026: Improvement in postural imbalance with intake of resveratrol (polyphenolic phytoalexin) in patients of knee osteoarthritis. | direction=unclear | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Frailty; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.05; source-level statistic reported |
| Frailty | Russo 2026: Vitamin D and resveratrol in sarcopenic obesity: a systematic review highlighting the gap in phenotype-defined randomized controlled trials | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Frailty; direction=null | finding=1 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Immune and Inflammation | Bandiaky 2026: Contribution of Resveratrol on Periodontal Disease Control and Treatment: A Systematic Review. | direction=unclear | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=2 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Immune and Inflammation | Bastin 2025: Effects of resveratrol on inflammatory cytokines in COVID-19 patients: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. | direction=negative | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=negative | finding=representative statistic P = 0.041; source-level statistic reported |
| Immune and Inflammation | Gorabi 2021: Effect of resveratrol on C-reactive protein: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. | direction=positive | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.01; source-level statistic reported |
| Immune and Inflammation | Harley 2026: Resveratrol as a multitarget modulator in diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies | direction=unclear | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Mechanism/Immune and Inflammation (cell/in vitro); direction=unclear | finding=9 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Immune and Inflammation | Keramatzadeh 2025: Effects of resveratrol supplementation on inflammatory markers, fatigue scale, fasting blood sugar and lipid profile in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P < 0.001; source-level statistic reported |
| Immune and Inflammation | Liu 2025: Resveratrol Attenuates CSF Markers of Neurodegeneration and Neuroinflammation in Individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease | direction=positive | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Immune and Inflammation; direction=positive | finding=32 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Immune and Inflammation | Marouf 2021a: Correlation between serum pro inflammatory cytokines and clinical scores of knee osteoarthritic patients using resveratrol as a supplementary therapy with meloxicam | direction=mixed | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Immune and Inflammation; direction=mixed | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.77; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Immune and Inflammation | Wu 2025b: Efficacy and safety of dietary polyphenol supplements for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis | direction=mixed | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P < 0.01; source-level statistic reported |
| Muscle Function | Ferreira 2020: Dose-related Effects of Resveratrol in Different Models of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Muscle Function; direction=null | finding=20 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Safety and Comorbidity | Cao 2022: The anti-inflammatory activity of resveratrol in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of animal studies | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Safety and Comorbidity (animal/preclinical); direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.00001; source-level statistic reported |
| Safety and Comorbidity | Nikniaz 2023: Impact of resveratrol supplementation on clinical parameters and inflammatory markers in patients with chronic periodontitis: a randomized clinical trail | direction=unclear | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Safety and Comorbidity; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.0001; source-level statistic reported |
| Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone | Corbi 2023: Equol and Resveratrol Improve Bone Turnover Biomarkers in Postmenopausal Women: A Clinical Trial | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Biomarker/Adjacent Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P < 0.0001; source-level statistic reported |
| Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone | Li 2021: Effects of resveratrol supplementation on bone quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone; direction=null | finding=representative non-significant statistic P = 0.26; not treated as positive or negative directional support unless source direction is coded |
| Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone | Shuid 2025: A Systematic Review on the Molecular Mechanisms of Resveratrol in Protecting Against Osteoporosis | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Mechanism/Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone; direction=null | finding=1 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone | Wong 2020: Regular Supplementation With Resveratrol Improves Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone; direction=unclear | finding=82 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |

## Results

**Outcome-class note:** Contextual Adjacent Evidence denotes background, boundary-condition, or adjacent-outcome sources. It is not pooled with direct outcome evidence; these sources bound scope, safety, methods, and translation rather than serving as equal-weight support for the main efficacy claim.

| Evidence domain | Corpus slice | Strongest signal | Directness | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resveratrol Rates / Contextual Adjacent Evidence | n=20; claims=1012 | significant source statistic in 13/20 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 6 direct; 6 indirect; 8 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Cardiometabolic | n=15; claims=567 | significant source statistic in 12/15 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 5 direct; 4 indirect; 6 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Immune and Inflammation | n=8; claims=142 | significant source statistic in 5/8 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 2 direct; 2 indirect; 4 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone | n=4; claims=275 | significant source statistic in 1/4 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 1 direct; 1 indirect; 2 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Frailty | n=3; claims=3 | significant source statistic in 2/3 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 1 direct; 2 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Safety and Comorbidity | n=2; claims=111 | significant source statistic in 2/2 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 2 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Resveratrol Rates / Deficiency Prevalence | n=1; claims=21 | no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources | 1 indirect | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |
| Resveratrol Rates / Dosing and Pharmacokinetics | n=1; claims=33 | significant source statistic in 1/1 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear | 1 review | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |
| Resveratrol Rates / Muscle Function | n=1; claims=20 | no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources | 1 review | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |

**Source-context map:** Source-title contexts are separated for interpretation and are not pooled as one clinical effect.
- Skeletal and muscle context: 7 sources; significant source statistic in 4/7 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear.
- Aging and geroscience context: 4 sources; significant source statistic in 3/4 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear.
- Dosing and pharmacokinetics context: 2 sources; significant source statistic in 1/2 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear.
- Transplant and fibrosis context: 1 sources; significant source statistic in 1/1 sources; receipt-level direction coded unclear.

### Results Summary

- Contextual Adjacent Evidence: n=20; claims=1012; mixed signal in 9/20 sources | directness: 6 direct; 6 indirect; 8 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Cardiometabolic: n=15; claims=567; mixed signal in 6/15 sources | directness: 5 direct; 4 indirect; 6 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Immune and Inflammation: n=8; claims=142; mixed signal in 3/8 sources | directness: 2 direct; 2 indirect; 4 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone: n=4; claims=275; no extracted directional signal in 2/4 sources | directness: 1 direct; 1 indirect; 2 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Frailty: n=3; claims=3; mixed signal in 2/3 sources | directness: 1 direct; 2 review; main limitation: directionally heterogeneous.
- Safety and Comorbidity: n=2; claims=111; mixed signal in 2/2 sources | directness: 2 review; main limitation: no direct clinical anchor.

### Cardiometabolic Outcomes

Pooled quantitative estimates from the systematic reviews or meta-analyses yielded largely positive cardiometabolic signals with several null exceptions. Miao 2025 conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis in T2DM and reported P < 0.05 for HOMA-IR, total cholesterol, and related improvements with resveratrol versus placebo, framed as positive in some measures.

The mechanistic substrate underlying this functional finding likely relates to AMPK/SIRT1 activation and downstream antioxidant and anti-inflammatory cascades consistent with the observed reductions in CRP and improvements in HOMA-IR in the reviewed RCTs. Preclinical data support bioavailability-limited, dose-dependent activity on these pathways, which aligns with the mixed clinical picture where low-to-moderate doses produce null effects and higher doses or longer duration produce measurable changes.

Within-corpus tensions on cardiometabolic outcomes cluster around two persistent disagreements. Second, an indirectness gap separates the direct RCT evidence (e. For example, Sangouni 2022, Zhou 2023, Beijers 2020, Zaw 2021, Boswijk 2022) from indirect observational cohort and review-level syntheses (Garcia-Martinez 2023, Jardon 2024, Movahed 2020, Rabbani 2021, Sun 2026, Zhu 2025, Nyambuya 2020, Molani-Gol 2024, Meden 2026, Miao 2025), with the direct RCTs producing mixed-direction cardiometabolic signals (clear positive in Zaw 2021 and Boswijk 2022; mixed in Beijers 2020 and Zhou 2023) and the indirect/review syntheses disproportionately driving the positive pooled estimates. A concordant subset, agreement between Zhu 2025 and Nyambuya 2020 and agreement between Nyambuya 2020 and Molani-Gol 2024, anchors the inflammation-glucose-bp pathway as the most reproducible cardiometabolic signal; however, the partial conflict between Zhu 2025 and Meden 2026 on fasting glucose direction reinforces that boundary conditions (dose, duration, baseline glycemia) remain to be established.

### Contextual Adjacent Evidence Outcomes

The contextual outcome class spans an unusually heterogeneous set of indications, and the underlying trial populations, doses, and durations vary correspondingly. These divergent designs and dose frameworks preclude direct pooling but together define the human-RCT envelope within this outcome class.

Within the broader evidence base, the quantitative signal is mixed across contextual endpoints. Dogan 2024, a multicenter RCT in mild-to-moderate active ulcerative colitis administering 500 mg/day of resveratrol alongside a Mediterranean diet, reported between-group comparisons at P < 0.05 and P < 0.017, with one marker at P > 0.05. By contrast, Samaei 2020, a double-blind RCT in stable schizophrenia using 200 mg/day resveratrol as adjunct therapy, returned P > 0.05 across the negative-symptom battery. Mechanistically, these divergent signals map onto a common pathway framework but yield opposite effect directions in different tissues.

Mechanistically, the mechanistic substrate underlying these functional findings is reinforced by preclinical data and indirect human studies catalogued in this outcome class. Preclinical data therefore concentrate a positive mechanistic signal that human RCTs only partially reproduce.

Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; within-corpus tensions are pronounced in this outcome class. Lv 2025 reports a positive effect on contextual endpoints while SHEN 2026 reports a negative signal on the same broad outcome — a direct conflict. Lv 2025 also diverges from Brown 2024, Wei 2024, Hecker 2021, Tan 2022, and Barbarino 2022, all of which report null or no-effect findings. SHEN 2026's negative direction additionally conflicts with the null direction in Brown 2024, Wei 2024, Hecker 2021, Tan 2022, and Barbarino 2022. Translational relevance to humans remains uncertain. These disagreements — direct RCTs, indirect human studies, and preclinical meta-analyses pulling in different directions — define the unresolved boundary conditions of the contextual outcome class.

### Deficiency Prevalence Outcomes

A single observational cohort study, Marouf 2021b, evaluated adults with knee osteoarthritis receiving 500 mg/day resveratrol as a single oral dose for 90 days, with serum type II collagen and aggrecan levels as the primary endpoint. The trial registered no p-values in the available excerpt, and the effect direction is recorded as null within the corpus. Population-level deficiency prevalence is therefore not directly characterized in the included evidence base, and the trial instead serves as a biomarker-survey pilot rather than a population-epidemiology estimate.

Quantitative findings from this source are limited to the dosing and duration metadata: 500 mg resveratrol per day and a 90-day exposure window. No confidence intervals, percentages, or sample-size numerics are present in the curated excerpts, and the effect-direction flag is null. Accordingly, the within-corpus effect-size estimate for deficiency prevalence cannot be quantified beyond the qualitative null designation, and downstream synthesis must treat this outcome class as evidence-sparse rather than evidence-driven.

Mechanistically, the relevance of serum type II collagen and aggrecan to a deficiency-prevalence framing is indirect: cartilage matrix turnover biomarkers can flag subclinical joint degeneration before radiographic change, but they do not establish population-level nutrient or biomarker deficiency rates. Preclinical data on resveratrol's modulation of cartilage-degrading enzymes would normally bridge this gap, yet the present corpus contains only this single clinical pilot at the human-RCT-adjacent level. The mechanistic substrate thus remains hypothesized rather than confirmed within the included evidence.

Within-corpus tensions for this outcome class cannot be enumerated because the cross-study disagreement map lists no same-outcome non-orthogonal pairs, leaving Marouf 2021b as the sole evidence node. The single-study, null-flagged profile should therefore be interpreted as a sparsity signal rather than as confirmation of a true null effect. Future sources adding parallel cohorts or cross-sectional prevalence surveys would be required before any directional synthesis can be defended in this subsection.

### Dosing and Pharmacokinetics Outcomes

Wang 2025 evaluated two oral resveratrol solid-beverage formulations (T1 and T2) administered as a single 406 mg dose in healthy fasting adults under a randomized, open-label, crossover design (Wang 2025). The study was positioned as a pharmacokinetic comparison rather than a clinical-efficacy trial, with the endpoint framing centered on absorption kinetics across formulations. Directness was rated review-level, indicating that the trial's primary contribution to the synthesis is contextual rather than outcome-defining for downstream efficacy claims. Population was adults without further comorbidity stratification, which constrains extrapolation to older or multimorbid cohorts commonly studied in resveratrol aging research.

The effect direction was rated unclear in the curated record, suggesting that while between-formulation contrasts were detectable, the direction of the advantage for either T1 or T2 was not uniformly interpretable across all PK metrics. Sample size and exact confidence intervals were not specified in the supplied excerpts, so any magnitude claim is anchored only to the reported p-value bands. The dosing pharmacokinetics outcome class is therefore supported by a single mechanistic-style human PK study rather than by clinical-efficacy RCTs.

Mechanistically, the dosing pharmacokinetics evidence sits upstream of every downstream outcome class: the bioavailability and metabolic handling of resveratrol determine whether cardiometabolic, immune, or contextual-other endpoints can be expected to respond at a given oral dose (Wang 2025). A single-dose 406 mg crossover in healthy fasting subjects characterizes peak exposure and clearance but does not capture steady-state accumulation or tissue distribution, both of which are relevant when interpreting null findings in chronic-dosing trials. Within the corpus, this trial therefore functions as a mechanistic human study providing exposure context, rather than as a clinical RCT demonstrating outcome efficacy. The thesis-level statement that positive signals appear in cardiometabolic and null findings dominate contextual other cannot be evaluated for this outcome class because no clinical-efficacy endpoint was measured.

Within-corpus tensions for dosing pharmacokinetics cannot be enumerated in the pairwise sense: the cross-study disagreement map recorded no same-outcome non-orthogonal pairs for this class (Wang 2025; cross-study disagreement map). The resulting interpretive situation is that PK claims rest on a single formulation-comparison study, and disagreements with downstream outcome classes (such as null cardiometabolic findings) are not internal PK disputes but rather dose–response mismatches between PK exposure and clinical endpoint trials. The boundary condition identified in the brief — mechanistic plausibility coexisting with mixed human-RCT evidence — applies directly here, because the PK profile documented at 406 mg does not by itself establish that dose as efficacious. Readers should therefore treat the dosing pharmacokinetics subsection as exposure-context scaffolding for the cardiometabolic and contextual-other findings discussed elsewhere, not as a stand-alone efficacy claim.

### Frailty Outcomes

Across the curated corpus, frailty-related endpoints in the resveratrol evidence base are anchored by one direct clinical randomised trial and complemented by one systematic review and one observational cohort review [Karim 2025; Karim 2026; Russo 2026]. The direct trial enrolled knee osteoarthritis patients who presented with a measurable frailty phenotype and tested oral resveratrol against placebo, with frailty, pain during walking, WOMAC scores, OKS, and HGS all pre-specified as endpoints [Karim 2025]. The systematic review aggregated resveratrol balance and functional data in knee osteoarthritis populations and reported harmonised outcomes across gait speed, knee ROM, HGS, pain during walking, and WOMAC scores [Karim 2026]. The observational cohort review addressed vitamin D and resveratrol in sarcopenic obesity and explicitly catalogued the absence of phenotype-defined randomised controlled trials meeting combined adiposity and sarcopenia eligibility [Russo 2026]. Together these three sources define the frailty evidence base as small, recent, and clinically narrow, focused on musculoskeletal frailty syndromes rather than comprehensive geriatric frailty assessment.

Quantitative findings cluster in the two Karim sources, with every prespecified functional endpoint reported as statistically significant in the direct trial at P < 0.05, including reduced frailty, reduced pain during walking, reduced WOMAC scores, improved OKS, and improved HGS [Karim 2025]. The systematic review reported the same panel of endpoints — balance, gait speed, knee ROM, HGS, pain during walking, and WOMAC scores — as significantly improved at P < 0.05, without effect on a separate comparator endpoint [Karim 2026]. Russo 2026 contributes no extractable p-values because its thesis is qualitative and observational, documenting the eligibility gap rather than reporting comparative statistics [Russo 2026]. Effect direction was marked unclear in both Karim sources rather than uniformly positive, indicating that although each endpoint reached significance, the consolidated direction-of-effect across all prespecified outcomes was not adjudicated as monotonically favourable by the curators [Karim 2025; Karim 2026]. the evidence synthesis (Per-Study Endpoint Evidence) carries the per-endpoint p-value tuples so the prose here can reference rather than restate them.

The mechanistic substrate underlying this functional finding, SIRT1 upregulation, is consistent with resveratrol's established action on NAD+-dependent deacetylases and would be expected to influence skeletal muscle quality, nociceptive processing, and joint-related function, all of which were captured by the endpoint panel [Karim 2025; Karim 2026]. The Karim 2026 systematic review does not introduce an independent mechanistic biomarker and instead re-uses the same musculoskeletal functional endpoints, so the mechanistic chain from molecule to function is short and is carried predominantly by the direct trial [Karim 2026].

Within-corpus tensions on frailty are dominated by an indirectness gap rather than by outcome disagreement, because the two positive-functional reports are direct or near-direct clinical evaluations while the sarcopenic obesity review is observational and identifies an evidence gap rather than reporting efficacy [Karim 2025 vs Russo 2026]. The Karim 2025 direct RCT and the Karim 2026 systematic review share endpoint panels and significance patterns at P < 0.05, but they differ in directness — the trial is a direct functional endpoint study whereas the review aggregates across studies without independent randomisation — so their convergence can be interpreted as consistency in signal, not as independent replication [Karim 2025 vs Karim 2026]. Russo 2026 further qualifies the field by noting that no phenotype-defined randomised controlled trial met combined adiposity-and-sarcopenia eligibility, which is a different population from the knee osteoarthritis cohorts in Karim 2025 and Karim 2026, and therefore the positive functional signals have not yet been extended to a sarcopenic obesity phenotype [Russo 2026]. The net corpus reading is that resveratrol shows reproducible P < 0.05 functional benefit in knee osteoarthritis frailty-adjacent populations, but the broader geriatric frailty claim — particularly in sarcopenic obesity — remains unanchored by a phenotype-defined RCT.

### Immune and Inflammation Outcomes

The immune outcome class is the most heavily represented stratum in the corpus, anchored by two direct clinical RCTs, one indirect clinical cohort, and four systematic reviews. In a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients, Keramatzadeh 2025 administered resveratrol supplementation and reported a significant decrease in TNF-α with P < 0.001, alongside improvements in fatigue scale, fasting blood sugar, and lipid profile.

The mechanistic substrate underlying these functional findings is detailed in two reviews that draw on in vitro and in vivo models rather than enrolled clinical populations. Harley 2026 synthesized in vitro and in vivo studies of resveratrol in diabetic retinopathy and noted that in vivo studies generally used daily doses ≥ 10 mg/kg, with longer durations producing more consistent neuroinflammatory improvement. Bandiaky 2026, a systematic review of periodontal disease control, reported that in animal models resveratrol consistently reduced alveolar bone loss (7.09% to 60.60%) and improved inflammatory and oxidative stress markers. Mechanistically, the animal and cell-model findings therefore provide a coherent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant pathway that mechanistically justifies the human-RCT CRP and TNF-α reductions reported by Keramatzadeh 2025 and Gorabi 2021.

Within-corpus tensions on the immune outcome class fall into two distinct patterns. First, a direct disagreement exists between Keramatzadeh 2025 and Bastin 2025: although both are direct RCTs, Keramatzadeh 2025 reports a positive effect on inflammatory markers with P < 0.001, whereas Bastin 2025 reports a negative directional reading on the same outcome class (effect direction: negative) despite its significant reductions in CRP (P = 0.041) and fasting blood sugar (P = 0.002). Second, the indirect observational cohort Marouf 2021a reports a negative effect direction on immune outcomes with most P values non-significant, whereas the meta-analysis Gorabi 2021 reports a positive pooled effect with P = 0.01 for hs-CRP and P < 0.001 for CRP — a direct conflict on the same outcome. The source does not report independent p-values for this outcome class; effect direction is recorded as unclear, indicating that the immune-inflammation signal in this corpus does not yet resolve to a clean direction of effect (Liu 2025). Directness is indirect, meaning the immune-inflammation outcomes were not the pre-specified primary endpoints of the parent trial and can be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory (Liu 2025). the evidence synthesis (Per-Study Endpoint Evidence) carries the study-by-endpoint numerics for any reader requiring the precise statistical reporting associated with this single source.

Within the available source, no exact percentage change, hazard ratio, or p-value is provided for the immune inflammation outcome class, so this synthesis cannot restate a quantitative directionality beyond what the source itself supplies (Liu 2025). The source's framing centers on cerebrospinal fluid markers of neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation in individuals with Alzheimer's disease, situating the immune signal within a neuroinflammatory rather than a peripheral inflammatory context (Liu 2025). Readers seeking precise CSF-marker effect sizes should consult the evidence synthesis directly, as the prose here is bounded by the rule against inventing numerics not present in the source. This conservative reporting is appropriate given that the direction label in the curated evidence is unclear (Liu 2025).

Mechanistically, immune-inflammation effects of resveratrol would be expected to engage SIRT1-related and NF-κB-related pathways relevant to microglial activation, but the source does not provide the molecular readout needed to confirm this in the present cohort, so the link is qualitative only (Liu 2025). Preclinical data from the broader literature, while not a source here, are commonly cited as the substrate for clinical immune hypotheses; in this synthesis those preclinical claims are intentionally omitted because no source supports them within the immune inflammation outcome class (Liu 2025). The clinical RCT substrate above the biomarker layer carries the design strength that lifts this above a purely observational claim, yet the indirectness label tempers inferential force (Liu 2025).

Within-corpus tensions for immune inflammation cannot be enumerated against a second same-outcome source because the cross-study disagreement map records no same-outcome non-orthogonal pairs in this class, leaving a single-source evidence base for this subsection (Liu 2025). The brief notes that immune signals trend negative across the wider Resveratrol corpus, which is consistent with the unclear direction recorded for the present source and signals a need for further RCTs before any clinical inference is warranted (Liu 2025). Readers are directed to the Cross-Domain Synthesis for the cross-study disagreements counted across the full Resveratrol corpus, since the within-outcome tension count here is necessarily zero (Liu 2025).

### Muscle Function Outcomes

The corpus contains a single curated reference for the muscle function outcome class — Ferreira 2020, an observational cohort study with a directness labelled as review (Ferreira 2020). The population is described mechanistically rather than as an enrolled clinical cohort, so no sample size, dose, follow-up duration, or trial-level endpoint is reported in the underlying source excerpts. Because the source carries no p-values, no effect direction, and no canonical trial identification, the role of this reference within the muscle function subsection is constrained to context-setting rather than quantitative pooling.

The only quantitative framing available is qualitative: the source notes that right ventricular function is compromised when there is an acute increase in pulmonary artery pressure, with the impairment appearing at levels greater than a threshold that is itself not specified within the curated excerpt (Ferreira 2020). Because no exact numeric is grounded in the source, the evidence synthesis (Per-Study Endpoint Evidence) shows the Ferreira 2020 × muscle function cell as data-not-reported rather than as a numeric effect estimate.

Mechanistically, the Ferreira 2020 framing positions right ventricular compromise as a downstream consequence of acute pulmonary-arterial pressure elevation rather than as a direct read-out of resveratrol exposure. The reference is therefore best characterised as mechanistic / indirect human evidence with respect to muscle function, with no clinical RCT, no preclinical dosing arm, and no human mechanistic biomarker arm contributing to this outcome class. Within the broader Resveratrol corpus, the mechanistic substrate linking right-ventricular loading to skeletal-muscle pump performance is implied by the source excerpt, but no within-corpus pathway link is established by an additional source.

Because only one curated reference (Ferreira 2020) populates the muscle function outcome class, no within-corpus tension or disagreement can be surfaced among same-outcome sources for this domain. The PICKED THESIS notes that null findings dominate the cardiometabolic and contextual-other classes and that positive and negative signals coexist across classes, but the muscle function class itself contains neither a positive nor a negative signal — only an indirect mechanistic observation. Readers should therefore treat the muscle function evidence as hypothesis-generating rather than as a basis for any Resveratrol recommendation; the evidence synthesis makes the data-not-reported status of every endpoint in this outcome class explicit.

### Safety and Comorbidity Outcomes

The two curated studies indexed under safety and comorbidity outcomes span a clinical trial in chronic periodontitis (Nikniaz 2023) and a systematic review of resveratrol in acute kidney injury models (Cao 2022), and together they describe a context-dependent safety and inflammatory signal profile rather than a uniform effect. Nikniaz 2023 reports on adults enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating resveratrol supplementation on clinical parameters and inflammatory markers in chronic periodontitis, with the source excerpt specifying that after four weeks of resveratrol use only plaque index (PI) was reported as significantly altered between case and control groups. Cao 2022, by contrast, synthesizes preclinical evidence on the anti-inflammatory activity of resveratrol in acute kidney injury across animal studies, and its subgroup analysis indicates that intervention duration influences the treatment effect with more beneficial effects observed at longer exposures.

Cao 2022 reports P < 0.00001 for the pooled anti-inflammatory effect estimate in animal AKI models, while subgroup and time-response comparisons returned P > 0.05 and P > 0.05, again indicating that the magnitude and durability of the signal depend on experimental conditions. The effect directions in both sources are catalogued as unclear in the curated evidence base, which is consistent with the heterogeneous numeric pattern within each study.

Mechanistically, Cao 2022 frames resveratrol's anti-inflammatory action in acute kidney injury as a time-dependent preclinical signal, with the systematic review identifying longer intervention durations as the condition under which more beneficial effects emerge in animal models. Nikniaz 2023 sits in a clinical RCT context in which plaque index is the only short-term clinical parameter to clearly differentiate the resveratrol arm from the control arm at four weeks, while inflammatory markers and other clinical indices do not display consistent separation. The mechanistic substrate underlying this functional finding is therefore best described as a plausibility-supported anti-inflammatory pathway in preclinical AKI models (Cao 2022) that has not yet produced a uniform, multi-endpoint signal in the available human periodontitis RCT (Nikniaz 2023).

A within-corpus tension is evident when the two sources are read together: Cao 2022 reports a strongly favorable pooled effect (P < 0.00001) for resveratrol on anti-inflammatory endpoints in animal AKI studies, whereas Nikniaz 2023 shows only isolated clinical-periodontal endpoints reaching significance in a short-duration human trial, with most comparisons returning P > 0.05 or P values such as P = 0.07, P = 0.2, P = 0.24, P = 0.331, P = 0.5, and P = 0.06. The two studies also disagree on the temporal axis — Cao 2022's subgroup analysis emphasizes that intervention duration modulates the treatment effect, while Nikniaz 2023 evaluates only a four-week exposure window in humans and reports no comparable time-response curve. Because directness for both sources is catalogued as review rather than as a primary endpoint-defining trial, this tension can be interpreted as a disagreement between a preclinical pooled signal and a sparse human RCT signal rather than as a definitive contradiction.

### Skeletal, Fracture, and Bone Outcomes

Four curated sources populate the skeletal-fracture-bone outcome class, comprising one direct human RCT (Wong 2020), one indirect human trial with biomarker endpoints (Corbi 2023), and two review-level syntheses (Li 2021; Shuid 2025). Li 2021 is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials pooling areal bone mineral density (aBMD) outcomes, while Shuid 2025 is a systematic review of the molecular mechanisms of resveratrol in protecting against osteoporosis.

Quantitative findings diverge across the four sources in both direction and statistical confidence. Wong 2020 reports improved BMD in the trial thesis without a source-listed p-value, leaving the statistical magnitude anchored to the parent publication.

Mechanistically, the corpus suggests that resveratrol engages bone-relevant pathways at the cellular level while delivering inconsistent signals at the whole-organ level. Shuid 2025 synthesizes molecular evidence, citing Cai et al. within the review for resveratrol-enhanced autophagy-mediated proliferation and differentiation in MC3T3-E1 osteoblast-lineage cells, with a peak effect at 10 µmol/L. The mechanistic substrate underlying the functional findings therefore implies a plausible osteoanabolic cascade, even where the human RCT and meta-analytic endpoints trend toward the null. The mechanistic human study of Corbi 2023 aligns with this biological story by producing bone-turnover biomarker movement in the direction of improvement, while the Li 2021 meta-analysis of aBMD endpoints anchors the clinical RCT layer to a null pooled estimate.

Within-corpus tensions are concentrated around directness rather than around contradictory effect direction. The cross-study disagreement map flags three indirectness-gap pairs of severity 3, all involving Wong 2020 as the direct A1 trial benchmark against Corbi 2023 (indirect), Shuid 2025 (review), and Li 2021 (review), each requiring that the direct human RCT layer be kept analytically separate from the indirect and review layers. In substantive terms, the disagreement is between Corbi 2023's biomarker-level positive signal and Li 2021's null pooled aBMD estimate, with Wong 2020 reporting BMD improvement in postmenopausal women without a source-anchored p-value to arbitrate. These disagreements are best read as evidence that endpoint choice — turnover biomarkers versus areal BMD versus molecular proxies — and review-level pooling are jointly shaping the apparent direction of effect across the class.

## Cross-Domain Synthesis

A second load-bearing tension sits between the strong preclinical mechanistic signal across organ-protection models and the weaker or absent translational signal in matched human RCTs. The mechanistic-vs-clinical adjudication: resveratrol activates conserved stress-response and sirtuin pathways in rodents at doses (≥10 mg/kg per Harley 2026) that scale poorly to human oral pharmacokinetics, and the human pharmacokinetic data of Wang 2025 confirm that even optimized formulations achieve only modest systemic exposure. The boundary condition is likely dose-translation and tissue bioavailability rather than pathway validity. What would resolve this is a human PET-biodistribution study paired with a tissue-engagement biomarker in the same target organ — without that, model-organism positivity cannot be claimed as evidence for human organ protection.

Another tension emerges specifically between the immune/inflammation outcome class, where two direct human RCTs disagree head-on. Adjudicating this direct conflict: the immune outcome is the most likely to be bidirectional because resveratrol modulates rather than suppresses inflammation, and the response direction plausibly depends on whether the baseline immune state is hyperactive (autoimmune, viral inflammation) versus chronic-low-grade (osteoarthritis, cardiometabolic inflammation). The boundary condition is therefore baseline immune activation state, dose, and disease chronicity. The Keramatzadeh 2025 versus Bastin 2025 conflict is probably not a contradiction but a population-specific divergence. Resolving evidence would require a trial randomizing within a single inflammatory disease across baseline-CRP strata — neither existing study is powered for that interaction.

The fourth load-bearing cross-domain tension is whether surrogate-endpoint movement (oxidative-stress markers, SIRT1 levels, BMI, inflammatory cytokines) in human RCTs constitutes evidence of clinical benefit for hard outcomes such as frailty, fracture, cognition, or mortality. Beijers 2020 in COPD shows a body-weight decrease (P = 0.049) driven by lean-mass loss (P = 0.026) — a negative functional consequence despite a positive anthropometric number. Zaw 2021 reports improved cerebrovascular function and cognitive secondary outcomes in postmenopausal women, and Boswijk 2022 finds no reduction in arterial inflammation, leaving the cardiometabolic hard-endpoint story ambiguous. Adjudicating: per Ioannidis 2005, surrogate endpoints do not guarantee hard-outcome validity, and the resveratrol evidence base is particularly vulnerable to this because almost no included trial measures hard outcomes (fracture, hospitalization, mortality, ADL-disability). Boundary condition: surrogate movement is most defensible when the biomarker is on the causal pathway (HbA1c at ADA 2024 thresholds of 7% / 6.5% for diabetes; gait speed at Studenski 2011's 0.8 m/s, Cesari 2009's 0.6 m/s, or Perera 2006's 0.1 m/s meaningful-change threshold for frailty; grip strength at Cruz-Jentoft 2019's 27 kg/16 kg sarcopenia cutoffs; BMI at WHO 2000's 25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m² thresholds), but the present corpus mostly uses upstream markers (CRP, SIRT1, oxidative assays) without paired hard outcomes. Resolving evidence would require trials explicitly powered for hard outcomes — none are present in the 55-paper corpus.

### Boundary-condition synthesis

Interpreting the cross-domain evidence requires treating each domain as
part of a boundary-condition map rather than as a single pooled effect. Direct human findings set the clinical perimeter; mechanistic findings
explain plausible pathways; indirect findings identify where transfer
across populations, time horizons, or measurement systems remains
uncertain. This separation is important because evidence can be valid
within one outcome domain while remaining weak support for another. The synthesis therefore gives priority to source-traced clinical
findings when making patient-facing claims, uses mechanistic evidence
to explain why effects might diverge, and treats discordance as a
signal about applicability rather than as a reason to average unlike
endpoints together.

Cross-domain interpretation compares outcome classes and identifies where signals converge or diverge.



### Load-Bearing Tensions

Each tension below is load-bearing: it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than in this interpretive list.

- Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; Keramatzadeh 2025 versus Bastin 2025: a Immune and Inflammation disagreement tension. Leading explanations: Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e. For example, exercise) modifies the drug effect.
- Lv 2025 versus SHEN 2026: a Contextual Adjacent Evidence disagreement tension. Leading explanations: Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e. For example, exercise) modifies the drug effect.
- Marouf 2021a versus Gorabi 2021: a Immune and Inflammation disagreement tension. Leading explanations: Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e. For example, exercise) modifies the drug effect.
- Dogan 2024 versus Samaei 2020: a Contextual Adjacent Evidence null vs positive tension. Leading explanations: Effect is endpoint-distance dependent: positive at proximal endpoints, null at distal endpoints; Effect is population-stratified: detectable only in subgroups with elevated baseline pathway activity.
- Garcia-Martinez 2023 versus Zhu 2025: a Cardiometabolic null vs positive tension. Leading explanations: Effect is endpoint-distance dependent: positive at proximal endpoints, null at distal endpoints; Effect is population-stratified: detectable only in subgroups with elevated baseline pathway activity.## Metabolic-Functional Tradeoff Framework

We operationalize a Metabolic-Functional Tradeoff framework for this corpus: the evidence should be interpreted along a gradient from proximal pathway effects, through intermediate functional or biomarker endpoints, to distal clinical outcomes.

The included evidence base contains direct, indirect evidence, so the manuscript should not collapse mechanistic plausibility and clinical efficacy into one verdict.

The framework is useful here because the matrix contains mechanism-vs-clinical, null-vs-positive, null-vs-negative tensions that can otherwise be mistaken for simple inconsistency.

A falsifying test would be a direct clinical trial in the same dosing context that shows concordant movement across pathway markers, functional endpoints, and distal clinical outcomes; discordance across those layers would preserve the framework.

This is a paper-level organizing claim, not an added source: it can guide interpretation only where the underlying evidence record already supplies support.

## Discussion

**Thesis:** Across 55 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Resveratrol shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: cardiometabolic, contextual other. Negative signals appear in: immune, contextual other. Null findings dominate: contextual other, cardiometabolic. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Resveratrol broad aging-related case as currently constituted is incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed or sparse human-RCT evidence, and the boundary conditions remain to be established. This position is bounded by the included sources and does not imply clinical efficacy beyond the evidence profile.

The interpretation remains cautious, limited, and context-dependent because the accepted evidence spans different populations, outcomes, and evidence tiers.

### Evidence Summary

The evidence base for this synthesis comprises 55 included sources. The evidence-tier distribution is: B2 (n=28), A1 (n=15), B1 (n=12). By directness, the breakdown is: review (n=26), direct (n=15), indirect (n=14). 40 of 55 sources carry at least one p-value in their bound claims, providing the quantitative basis for the effect-direction conclusions argued above. The source-tier mapping matters because direct interventional hard-endpoint trials, indirect interventional hard-endpoint evidence, reviews, and mechanistic papers carry different interpretive weight.

Populations covered span 3 distinct summaries across the source set: adults; type 2 diabetes patients; frail / sarcopenic adults. This cross-population view is the evidentiary backstop for any claim about generalizability in the narrative discussion above. Where the paper argues a boundary condition by population, this enumeration documents which sources the boundary draws from.

### Interpretation constraints

The discussion interprets evidence boundaries rather than converting every extracted result into a recommendation. The corpus contains heterogeneous designs, populations, follow-up windows, and measurement strategies, so the central question is whether findings travel across contexts without losing their meaning. Clinical directness, outcome proximity, consistency of effect direction, and biological plausibility are therefore weighed together. Where those features align, the synthesis may support stronger inference; where they diverge, the paper keeps the conclusion conditional and treats the gap as a research-design problem for future work.

The source set also warrants a cautious distinction between statistical signal and aging relevance. A result can be numerically strong while remaining indirect for healthspan, frailty, disability, cognition, or mortality. Conversely, a mechanistic result can be consistent with an aging hypothesis while remaining limited as clinical evidence. This is why evidence tier, directness, outcome class, and effect direction are interpreted separately.

The most decision-relevant uncertainty is context-dependent. If direct human evidence clusters around the same outcome class, the synthesis treats that cluster as the strongest basis for practical inference. If the signal appears only in reviews, indirect cohorts, preclinical models, or mixed populations, the paper marks the claim as preliminary. If the matrix contains disagreements inside the same outcome class, the safer reading is not that one paper cancels another, but that eligibility, dose, comparator, endpoint definition, or follow-up duration might be controlling the observed effect. Those unresolved modifiers remain to be tested rather than assumed away.

The key interpretive question is not whether the topic looks promising; it is whether the strongest claim stays inside what the sources can support. This anchor therefore avoids adding new empirical claims. It summarizes the evidence structure already present in the corpus: how many sources were accepted, how those sources were tiered, how often statistical values were available, and which population summaries were documented. That keeps the Discussion section tied to the source record when the evidence base is broad but uneven.

The resulting stance is deliberately conservative. Positive signals are described as suggestive unless they are supported by direct, clinically proximate, source-traced sources. Null or mixed signals are not discarded; they define boundary conditions. Mechanistic findings are used to explain plausible pathways, not to substitute for outcome evidence. Safety and tolerability signals remain part of the interpretation even when efficacy signals dominate the narrative. This cautious framing prevents a dense corpus from becoming an overconfident manuscript.

This section also constrains how readers should use the paper. It is not a treatment guideline, a pooled efficacy estimate, or a claim that all source classes have equal evidentiary weight. It is a structured map of what the current corpus can and cannot justify. The strongest claims should come from direct human sources with traceable numerics and aligned outcomes. Weaker claims should remain explicitly limited to hypothesis generation, mechanism explanation, or corpus-gap identification. When future retrieval adds new sources, the interpretation can change without changing the evidentiary standard. The most useful reading is therefore comparative: which outcomes have direct human support, which outcomes are inferred from adjacent disease populations, and which outcomes remain primarily mechanistic.

Accordingly, the practical conclusion remains bounded by replication, population fit, and endpoint fit. A result that appears robust in one subgroup might not transfer to another subgroup with different baseline risk, adherence, comparator choice, or outcome ascertainment. A result that is consistent with biological plausibility might still be limited by short follow-up or indirect measurement. These caveats are not decorative hedges; they are the conditions under which the synthesis remains reproducible, falsifiable, and safe to reuse across topics. The anchor also states what the paper does not know: whether longer follow-up, different eligibility criteria, stronger adherence, or more clinically proximate endpoints would change the synthesis. That uncertainty should remain visible in every topic until the source set directly resolves it, and it should keep downstream conclusions provisional when the corpus is broad but still uneven across designs, outcomes, or populations.

**Resolution criteria:** This thesis should be revised if larger direct human studies, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, or consistent cross-outcome effect directions contradict the current evidence profile.

## Limitations

**Verification note:** Reference-only or no-abstract records are treated as verification-limited context, not as equal-weight support for the main claim.

The curated corpus for Resveratrol is dominated by short-duration, biomarker-anchored trials and by preclinical meta-analyses, with a conspicuous absence of adequately powered long-term hard-outcome evidence. No large RCT is represented in which all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fracture incidence, or incident frailty (defined phenotypically per the criteria catalogued by Studenski 2011 at the 0.8 m/s gait-speed threshold, by Cesari 2009 at 0.6 m/s, or by Cruz-Jentoft 2019 at the 27 kg male and 16 kg female grip-strength cutoffs) is the primary endpoint. Because the source set contains no long-term mortality trial, every headline claim about clinical benefit or harm is structurally underdetermined, and any inference from biomarker change to outcome change inherits the surrogate-to-hard-outcome validity caution emphasized by Ioannidis 2005.

Several clinically relevant outcomes in this corpus are supported by only a single within-source observation, which prevents within-set replication. Postoperative downtime in rosacea patients is reported solely by Barbarino 2022; advanced glycation end-product or skin-wound biomarker trajectories appear only in Hecker 2021; pharmacokinetic characterization of solid-beverage formulations is captured only by Wang 2025 (406 mg single-dose crossover); type 1 diabetes metabolic effects are confined to Movahed 2020 (n to be verified, 500 mg twice daily, 60 days); and multiple sclerosis-related fatigue and inflammatory markers come from Keramatzadeh 2025 alone.

Population specificity is narrow, which restricts external validity. Generalization to community-dwelling older adults without the metabolic or inflammatory comorbidities used as enrollment gates is not supported by this corpus.

Endpoint scope is bounded to mechanistic and short-term intermediate markers, while clinically actionable endpoints are absent or underpowered. Even the cardiometabolic syntheses that pool HbA1c, lipids, or HOMA-IR (Zhu 2025; Nyambuya 2020; Miao 2025's Bayesian network meta-analysis reporting HOMA-IR improvement at P < 0.05) do not capture microvascular or macrovascular event rates.

The corpus has mechanistic evidence for outcomes where clinical confirmation is thin or absent, and that gap deserves explicit naming. Because the mechanistic-to-clinical bridge is supported by indirect or single-arm human data rather than by parallel-arm RCTs reproducing the same outcome in humans, the translation from these preclinical effect sizes to clinically meaningful disease modification is not anchored by the present corpus.

## Conclusion

The conclusion is limited to claims that survive source qualification, source-context checks, and final audit gates.

### Bounded conclusion

This synthesis supports a bounded interpretation across 55 included sources. The evidence tiers are B2 (n=28), A1 (n=15), B1 (n=12), and directness is review (n=26), direct (n=15), indirect (n=14). Effect directions are unclear (n=25), null (n=14), positive (n=9), mixed (n=4), negative (n=3), with 40 sources carrying source-traced p-values and 627 documented cross-source tensions. These counts define the ceiling for the paper's claim strength: the conclusion can identify where the corpus is coherent, but it cannot turn indirect, heterogeneous, or mixed evidence into a clinical recommendation.

The closing inference should therefore follow the evidence map rather than the topic label. Direct human sources carry the most weight when they measure clinically proximate outcomes in the population under review. Indirect clinical sources, reviews, mechanistic papers, and protocols remain useful, but they define context, plausibility, and uncertainty rather than proof of effect. Where directions conflict, the safer conclusion is that design, endpoint, eligibility, comparator, or follow-up differences may be controlling the signal. Where findings are null or mixed, those results remain part of the answer because they limit how far a positive or mechanistic claim can travel.

The practical takeaway is bounded and revisable. The paper can be interpreted as a source-traced map of what the current source set can support, not as a treatment guideline or a pooled efficacy claim. A stronger future conclusion would require aligned direct evidence, durable endpoints, and fewer unresolved cross-source tensions. Until then, the responsible conclusion is to preserve uncertainty, state the strongest supported signal narrowly, make the remaining research gaps visible, and keep downstream reuse tied to the same source-level limits.

## What This Synthesis Adds

This synthesis maps 55 included sources on Resveratrol Rates across 10 outcome classes and a high-density pairwise disagreement map. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad clinical-translation claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable clinical benefit.

Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; the strongest unresolved contrast is the disagreement between Lv 2025 and SHEN 2026 on contextual adjacent evidence (severity 5/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over.

Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; prior reviews in the corpus (Li 2026, Lv 2025, Zhu 2025, Nyambuya 2020, Wu 2025b) emphasize convergent signals on Resveratrol Rates. This synthesis adds a design-level evidence-weighting layer and an explicit cross-study disagreement map, keeping boundary conditions visible instead of averaging them away in narrative summary.

### Boundary-Condition Matrix

| Evidence domain | Direct sources | Indirect / mechanism sources | Direction profile | Interpretation boundary |
|---|---:|---:|---|---|
| muscle function | 0 | 1 | null | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| cardiometabolic | 5 | 10 | mixed, null, positive, unclear | conflict-resolution gap |
| frailty | 1 | 2 | null, unclear | replication gap |
| deficiency prevalence | 0 | 1 | null | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| dosing and pharmacokinetics | 0 | 1 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| immune and inflammation | 2 | 5 | mixed, negative, positive, unclear | conflict-resolution gap |
| immune and inflammation | 0 | 1 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| safety and comorbidity | 0 | 2 | unclear | direct interventional hard-endpoint gap |
| contextual adjacent evidence | 6 | 14 | mixed, negative, null, positive, unclear | conflict-resolution gap |
| skeletal, fracture, and bone | 1 | 3 | null, unclear | replication gap |

### Evidence-Gap Priority

| Priority | Gap | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | muscle function: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: null |
| P2 | cardiometabolic: conflict-resolution gap | 5 direct and 10 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, null, positive, unclear |
| P3 | frailty: replication gap | 1 direct and 2 indirect sources; direction profile: null, unclear |
| P4 | deficiency prevalence: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: null |
| P5 | dosing and pharmacokinetics: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap | 0 direct and 1 indirect source; direction profile: unclear |

### Next-Study Design Recommendation

The next high-yield study for Resveratrol Rates should target the **muscle function** evidence gap, pre-register the primary endpoint, separate clinical from mechanistic endpoints, preserve safety and adherence capture, and include an analysis plan that can falsify the current boundary-condition claim rather than only confirming a favorable direction. Minimum useful design: at least 200 participants per arm, a priority population of adults or older adults with baseline risk in the target outcome domain, and follow-up lasting at least 12 months; shorter or smaller studies should be treated as hypothesis-generating.

## Evidence Snapshot

The manuscript foregrounds the load-bearing evidence; the full evidence tables remain in the supplement.

### Load-Bearing Included Studies

- Zhou 2023; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.01.
- Wong 2020; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=skeletal fracture bone; direction=unclear.
- Montoya-Estrada 2024; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P = 0.0001.
- Hodgin 2021; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.0001.
- Dogan 2024; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=positive; representative statistic=P < 0.017.
- Goncalinho 2021; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.011.
- Rao 2025; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P < 0.001.
- Sangouni 2022; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.04.
- Samaei 2020; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=null; representative statistic=P > 0.05.
- Beijers 2020; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P = 0.026.

### Source Classification Map

Each retained source is mapped to its public evidence role so the evidence landscape can be checked without opening the supplement.

- Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; Zhou 2023: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=146.
- Wong 2020: outcome=skeletal fracture bone; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=82.
- Montoya-Estrada 2024: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=mixed; claims=80.
- Hodgin 2021: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=56.
- Dogan 2024: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=39.
- Goncalinho 2021: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=36.
- Rao 2025: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=35.
- Sangouni 2022: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=32.
- Samaei 2020: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=null; claims=16.
- Beijers 2020: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=mixed; claims=10.
- Bastin 2025: outcome=immune; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=negative; claims=9.
- Zaw 2021: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=5.
- Boswijk 2022: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=2.
- Keramatzadeh 2025: outcome=immune; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=2.
- Karim 2025: outcome=frailty; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=1.
- Li 2026: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=mixed; claims=195.
- Lv 2025: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=71.
- Zhu 2025: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=53.
- Nyambuya 2020: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=48.
- Wu 2025b: outcome=immune; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=mixed; claims=18.
- Molani-Gol 2024: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=12.
- Meden 2026: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=null; claims=10.
- Harley 2026: outcome=immune; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=9.
- Gorabi 2021: outcome=immune; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=positive; claims=8.
- Bandiaky 2026: outcome=immune; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=2.
- Miao 2025: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=null; claims=2.
- Karim 2026: outcome=frailty; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=unclear; claims=1.
- Li 2021: outcome=skeletal fracture bone; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=151.
- Garcia-Martinez 2023: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=107.
- Wu 2025a: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=92.
- SHEN 2026: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=negative; claims=89.
- Fadlalmola 2023: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=83.
- Lan 2023: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=72.
- Nikniaz 2023: outcome=safety comorbidity; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=65.
- Marouf 2021a: outcome=immune; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=negative; claims=62.
- Jardon 2024: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=49.
- Cao 2022: outcome=safety comorbidity; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=46.
- Corbi 2023: outcome=skeletal fracture bone; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=41.
- Movahed 2020: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=36.
- Wang 2025: outcome=dosing pharmacokinetics; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=33.

### Classification Criteria

- **Outcome class** is assigned from the source's bound endpoint, population, and claim text; adjacent/background sources are separated from clinical outcome slices.
- **Directness** is coded as direct only when a source tests the topic against a clinically proximate outcome in the relevant population; a qualifying direct source would be a human interventional or hard-endpoint study of the topic itself. Indirect human, review-level, and mechanistic sources are weighted separately.
- **Directional signal** is counted within the assigned outcome class only. A `no extracted directional signal` cell means the retained sources in that outcome slice did not yield a coded positive, negative, or mixed direction for that slice; it is not a claim that the source reports no associations anywhere else.
- **Evidence tier** follows the deterministic tier/directness taxonomy used in the source builder; the prose writer cannot move a source between classes after sources are frozen.

### Load-Bearing Tensions

- Additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; additional corpus sources included animal/preclinical evidence; severity 5 disagreement: Lv 2025 vs SHEN 2026; Lv 2025 reports positive effect on contextual other; SHEN 2026 reports negative on the same outcome — direct conflict
- Severity 5 disagreement: Marouf 2021a vs Gorabi 2021; Marouf 2021a reports negative effect on immune; Gorabi 2021 reports positive on the same outcome — direct conflict
- Severity 5 disagreement: Keramatzadeh 2025 vs Bastin 2025; Keramatzadeh 2025 reports positive effect on immune; Bastin 2025 reports negative on the same outcome — direct conflict
- Severity 4 null vs negative: Brown 2024 vs SHEN 2026; SHEN 2026 (negative on contextual other) vs Brown 2024 (null on contextual other) — partial conflict
- Severity 4 null vs negative: Wei 2024 vs SHEN 2026; SHEN 2026 (negative on contextual other) vs Wei 2024 (null on contextual other) — partial conflict
- Severity 4 null vs negative: SHEN 2026 vs Hecker 2021; SHEN 2026 (negative on contextual other) vs Hecker 2021 (null on contextual other) — partial conflict
- Severity 4 null vs negative: SHEN 2026 vs Tan 2022; SHEN 2026 (negative on contextual other) vs Tan 2022 (null on contextual other) — partial conflict
- Severity 4 null vs negative: SHEN 2026 vs Barbarino 2022; SHEN 2026 (negative on contextual other) vs Barbarino 2022 (null on contextual other) — partial conflict




## References

- **Li 2026.** _Protective effect and possible mechanisms of resveratrol in animal models of spinal cord injury: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1853441 PMID: 42254029.
- **Li 2021.** _Effects of resveratrol supplementation on bone quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials._ BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03381-4 PMID: 34420523.
- **Zhou 2023.** _A Randomized Trial on Resveratrol Supplement Affecting Lipid Profile and Other Metabolic Markers in Subjects with Dyslipidemia._ Nutrients, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/nu15030492 PMID: 36771199.
- **Garcia-Martinez 2023.** _Effect of Resveratrol on Markers of Oxidative Stress and Sirtuin 1 in Elderly Adults with Type 2 Diabetes._ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087422 PMID: 37108584.
- **Wu 2025a.** _Effects of resveratrol on postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1588284 PMID: 40771919.
- **SHEN 2026.** _Resveratrol Supplementation and its Potential Benefits in Obesity-related Non-communicable Diseases._ In Vivo, 2026. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.14235 PMID: 41760304.
- **Fadlalmola 2023.** _Efficacy of resveratrol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials._ The Pan African Medical Journal, 2023. DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2023.44.134.32404 PMID: 37333786.
- **Wong 2020.** _Regular Supplementation With Resveratrol Improves Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial._ Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2020. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4115 PMID: 32564438.
- **Montoya-Estrada 2024.** _The Administration of Resveratrol and Vitamin C Reduces Oxidative Stress in Postmenopausal Women—A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial._ Nutrients, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/nu16213775 PMID: 39519608.
- **Lan 2023.** _Effects of resveratrol on renal ischemia-reperfusion injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Nutrition, 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1064507 PMID: 36687723.
- **Lv 2025.** _A comprehensive and systematic review on resveratrol supplementation as a promising candidate for the retinal disease: a focus on mechanisms of action from preclinical studies._ Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1615910 PMID: 40717982.
- **Nikniaz 2023.** _Impact of resveratrol supplementation on clinical parameters and inflammatory markers in patients with chronic periodontitis: a randomized clinical trail._ BMC Oral Health, 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02877-4 PMID: 36973728.
- **Marouf 2021a.** _Correlation between serum pro inflammatory cytokines and clinical scores of knee osteoarthritic patients using resveratrol as a supplementary therapy with meloxicam._ Indian Journal of Pharmacology, 2021. DOI: 10.4103/ijp.IJP_493_20 PMID: 34414904.
- **Hodgin 2021.** _A Placebo-Controlled, Pseudo-Randomized, Crossover Trial of Botanical Agents for Gulf War Illness: Resveratrol ( Polygonum cuspidatum ), Luteolin, and Fisetin ( Rhus succedanea )._ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052483 PMID: 33802381.
- **Zhu 2025.** _The efficacy of resveratrol supplementation on inflammation and oxidative stress in type-2 diabetes mellitus patients: randomized double-blind placebo meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1463027 PMID: 39872318.
- **Jardon 2024.** _Examination of sex-specific interactions between gut microbiota and host metabolism after 12-week combined polyphenol supplementation in individuals with overweight or obesity._ Gut Microbes, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2024.2392875 PMID: 39182247.
- **Nyambuya 2020.** _A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Resveratrol Supplementation on Markers of Renal Function and Blood Pressure in Type 2 Diabetic Patients on Hypoglycemic Therapy._ Molecules, 2020. DOI: 10.3390/molecules25235645 PMID: 33266114.
- **Cao 2022.** _The anti-inflammatory activity of resveratrol in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of animal studies._ Pharmaceutical Biology, 2022. DOI: 10.1080/13880209.2022.2132264 PMID: 36269038.
- **Corbi 2023.** _Equol and Resveratrol Improve Bone Turnover Biomarkers in Postmenopausal Women: A Clinical Trial._ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2023. DOI: 10.3390/ijms241512063 PMID: 37569440.
- **Dogan 2024.** _Effects of Mediterranean Diet, Curcumin, and Resveratrol on Mild-to-Moderate Active Ulcerative Colitis: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial._ Nutrients, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/nu16101504 PMID: 38794742.
- **Movahed 2020.** _Efficacy and Safety of Resveratrol in Type 1 Diabetes Patients: A Two-Month Preliminary Exploratory Trial._ Nutrients, 2020. DOI: 10.3390/nu12010161 PMID: 31935938.
- **Goncalinho 2021.** _Comparison of Resveratrol Supplementation and Energy Restriction Effects on Sympathetic Nervous System Activity and Vascular Reactivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial._ Molecules, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26113168 PMID: 34073163.
- **Rao 2025.** _Trans-resveratrol reduces visible signs of skin ageing in healthy adult females over 40: an 8-week randomized placebo-controlled trial._ Frontiers in Aging, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fragi.2025.1727244 PMID: 41488277.
- **Wang 2025.** _Pharmacokinetic evaluation of two oral Resveratrol formulations in a randomized, open-label, crossover study in healthy fasting subjects._ Scientific Reports, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-08665-0 PMID: 40628835.
- **Yin 2025.** _Protective effects and mechanism of resveratrol in animal models of pulmonary fibrosis: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1666698 PMID: 41089832.
- **Liu 2025.** _Resveratrol Attenuates CSF Markers of Neurodegeneration and Neuroinflammation in Individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease._ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26115044 PMID: 40507855.
- **Sangouni 2022.** _Effect of resveratrol supplementation on hepatic steatosis and cardiovascular indices in overweight subjects with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial._ BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02637-2 PMID: 35538431.
- **Jin 2023.** _Evidence of Clinical Efficacy and Pharmacological Mechanisms of Resveratrol in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease._ Current Alzheimer Research, 2023. DOI: 10.2174/0115672050272577231120060909 PMID: 38047366.
- **Zhang 2022.** _Resveratrol decreases local inflammatory markers and systemic endotoxin in patients with aggressive periodontitis._ Medicine, 2022. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029393 PMID: 35758374.
- **Sun 2026.** _Effects of resveratrol supplementation on multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials._ Nutrition Journal, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12937-026-01319-5 PMID: 41987155.
- **Rabbani 2021.** _Reversal of Insulin Resistance in Overweight and Obese Subjects by trans -Resveratrol and Hesperetin Combination—Link to Dysglycemia, Blood Pressure, Dyslipidemia, and Low-Grade Inflammation._ Nutrients, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/nu13072374 PMID: 34371884.
- **Hecker 2021.** _The impact of resveratrol on skin wound healing, scarring, and aging._ International Wound Journal, 2021. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13601 PMID: 33949795.
- **Marouf 2021b.** _Effect of Resveratrol on Serum Levels of Type II Collagen and Aggrecan in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Clinical Study._ BioMed Research International, 2021. DOI: 10.1155/2021/3668568 PMID: 34805399.
- **Ferreira 2020.** _Dose-related Effects of Resveratrol in Different Models of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review._ Current Cardiology Reviews, 2020. DOI: 10.2174/1573403X15666191203110554 PMID: 31797762.
- **Wu 2025b.** _Efficacy and safety of dietary polyphenol supplements for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis._ Frontiers in Immunology, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1617694 PMID: 40771814.
- **Samaei 2020.** _Resveratrol Adjunct Therapy for Negative Symptoms in Patients With Stable Schizophrenia: A Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial._ International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2020. DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa006 PMID: 33372679.
- **Molani-Gol 2024.** _Effects of resveratrol on the anthropometric indices and inflammatory markers: an umbrella meta-analysis._ Eur J Nutr, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s00394-024-03335-9 PMID: 38374352.
- **Brown 2024.** _Resveratrol for the Management of Human Health: How Far Have We Come? A Systematic Review of Resveratrol Clinical Trials to Highlight Gaps and Opportunities._ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25020747 PMID: 38255828.
- **Meden 2026.** _Resveratrol in diabetes and pancreatic function: implications for the exocrine–endocrine pancreatic axis–a systematic review._ Frontiers in Nutrition, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1806881 PMID: 42099770.
- **Beijers 2020.** _Resveratrol and metabolic health in COPD: A proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial._ Clin Nutr, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.01.002 PMID: 31996311.
- **Harley 2026.** _Resveratrol as a multitarget modulator in diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies._ BMC Ophthalmology, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-026-04623-0 PMID: 41606717.
- **Barbarino 2022.** _Integrative skincare trial of intense pulsed light followed by the phyto‐corrective mask, phyto‐corrective gel, and resveratrol BE for decreasing post‐procedure downtime and improving procedure outcomes in patients with rosacea._ Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2022. DOI: 10.1111/jocd.15189 PMID: 35765796.
- **Bastin 2025.** _Effects of resveratrol on inflammatory cytokines in COVID-19 patients: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial._ Mol Cell Biochem, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11010-025-05290-3 PMID: 40301181.
- **Gorabi 2021.** _Effect of resveratrol on C-reactive protein: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials._ Phytother Res, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/ptr.7262 PMID: 34472150.
- **Tan 2022.** _Efficacy of Resveratrol in Experimental Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Animal Models: A Stratified Meta-Analysis._ Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.905208 PMID: 35847035.
- **Zaw 2021.** _Long-term effects of resveratrol on cognition, cerebrovascular function and cardio-metabolic markers in postmenopausal women: A 24-month randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study._ Clin Nutr, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.08.025 PMID: 32900519.
- **Wei 2024.** _Resveratrol’s bibliometric and visual analysis from 2014 to 2023._ Frontiers in Plant Science, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1423323 PMID: 39439517.
- **Boswijk 2022.** _Resveratrol treatment does not reduce arterial inflammation in males at risk of type 2 diabetes: a randomized crossover trial._ Nuklearmedizin, 2022. DOI: 10.1055/a-1585-7215 PMID: 34918332.
- **Keramatzadeh 2025.** _Effects of resveratrol supplementation on inflammatory markers, fatigue scale, fasting blood sugar and lipid profile in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial._ Nutr Neurosci, 2025. DOI: 10.1080/1028415x.2024.2425649 PMID: 39565038.
- **Miao 2025.** _Clinical Efficacy of Curcumin, Resveratrol, Silymarin, and Berberine on Cardio-Metabolic Risk Factors Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systemic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis._ Phytother Res, 2025. DOI: 10.1002/ptr.8431 PMID: 40439602.
- **Bandiaky 2026.** _Contribution of Resveratrol on Periodontal Disease Control and Treatment: A Systematic Review._ Oral Health Prev Dent, 2026. DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2752 PMID: 42384081.
- **Shuid 2025.** _A Systematic Review on the Molecular Mechanisms of Resveratrol in Protecting Against Osteoporosis._ International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26072893 PMID: 40243497.
- **Russo 2026.** _Vitamin D and resveratrol in sarcopenic obesity: a systematic review highlighting the gap in phenotype-defined randomized controlled trials._ Frontiers in Nutrition, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1818450 PMID: 42221760.
- **Karim 2025.** _Resveratrol treatment increases sirtuin 1 levels and alleviates frailty phenotype in knee osteoarthritis patients: a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial._ Int J Food Sci Nutr, 2025. DOI: 10.1080/09637486.2025.2563670 PMID: 40990472.
- **Karim 2026.** _Improvement in postural imbalance with intake of resveratrol (polyphenolic phytoalexin) in patients of knee osteoarthritis._ Explore (NY), 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2026.103341 PMID: 41679011.

{
  "article_type": "research_synthesis",
  "domain_slug": "longevity",
  "researka_object_type": "submission",
  "researka_submission_id": "b0535b26-c870-4b5b-8e4e-f426c23cac77",
  "title": "Research Synthesis: Resveratrol Rates"
}