Derivation Web

source_f69bbbcaa88946a1

by researka:v2 · 2026-07-30 20:19:07.171240+04:00

# Research Synthesis: Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects
## Abstract

Evidence scope: 4/12 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 aspirin cardiovascular effects across 12 included source papers and 1000 high-confidence extracted claims.

The evidence profile contains 8 direct clinical sources, 4 adjacent, review, or context sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence, with 34 cross-study disagreements across the evidence base.

Positive study-level signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; null signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; negative signals are not the dominant direction in any outcome class; mixed or heterogeneous signals are summarized in the cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, immune and inflammation, and longevity outcome classes. The paper therefore reports a source-directness and outcome-class map rather than a pooled effect.

The conclusion is that aspirin cardiovascular effects remains a bounded evidence case: the retained direct, adjacent, and context evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified broad clinical claim.

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. In abstract, interpretation remains limited to the retained endpoint-specific findings. This paragraph marks that evidence boundary and adds no result or recommendation beyond the cited corpus.

## Research Question

Within the retained source corpus for aspirin cardiovascular effects, among adults, do findings for cardiometabolic and contextual adjacent evidence support a decision-grade conclusion (clinically actionable where applicable), and which population, study-design, and directness boundaries keep extrapolation to other outcome classes hypothesis-generating?

## Introduction

This synthesis evaluates evidence on aspirin cardiovascular effects across 12 included source papers and 1000 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.

The corpus contains 8 direct clinical sources, 4 adjacent, review, or context sources, and no sources classified primarily as mechanistic or model-system evidence. 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.

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.

### Scope of the synthesis

This synthesis treats the topic as a structured research question
rather than as a binary endorsement. The introduction therefore frames
why the intervention is scientifically relevant, why the evidence base
must be separated by directness and outcome class, and why mechanistic
plausibility cannot substitute for clinical certainty. The public
argument is intentionally bounded: it asks what the accepted evidence
can support, what remains unresolved, and what kind of future study
would most efficiently reduce uncertainty.

## Background

The background evidence for aspirin cardiovascular effects is heterogeneous rather than uniformly confirmatory. Direct clinical sources such as Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1], Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2], Holder 2026 [bundle:3] are interpreted separately from mechanistic studies such as the retained evidence base, because these evidence roles answer different questions about aging biology and clinical translation [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-026-05708-w] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-04654-w].

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 outcome class; null signals around the cardiometabolic outcome class; and negative or adverse signals around the cardiometabolic outcome class. 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-aspirin_cardiovascular_effects-v06-DAILY-2026-07-30T16-16-31Z`.

### 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: 2026-07-30.

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

- `aspirin cardiovascular effects aging`
- `aspirin cardiovascular effects older adults`
- `aspirin cardiovascular effects randomized controlled trial`
- `aspirin aging`
- `aspirin older adults`
- `aspirin randomized controlled trial`
- `cardiovascular aging`
- `cardiovascular older adults`
- `cardiovascular randomized controlled trial`

### Eligibility criteria
- Sources whose primary content addresses aspirin cardiovascular effects.
- 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 173 records in the receipt-candidate union, 53 were classified as source candidates and 12 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 | 173 |
| Classified source candidates | 53 |
| No extractable claims | 7 |
| None-only claim binding | 0 |
| Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates | 71 |
| Partial-only claim-binding candidates | 21 |
| Strict high-confidence sources | 21 |
| Admitted final sources | 12 |

### Exclusion reasons
- No additional records were excluded after final source admission; upstream non-admission buckets are reported separately in the receipt funnel and are not post-admission exclusions.

### 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.

### Directness coding criteria
A source was coded as direct only when it tested the topic itself against a clinically proximate outcome in the relevant population. Human evidence with an adjacent exposure, population, or outcome was coded as indirect; syntheses and secondary reviews were coded as review-level evidence and were not counted as direct sources.

### 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, immune and inflammation, longevity); 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 12 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 | Berger 2006: Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women and Men | direction=positive | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=positive | finding=representative statistic P = 0.03; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Fransquet 2026: Triglyceride Polygenic Score Identifies Differential Bleeding and Cardiovascular Risk with Aspirin in Primary Prevention | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=2 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Holder 2026: Eligibility of real-world patients for aspirin primary prevention trials in cardiovascular disease | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.008; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Moawad 2026: Antiplatelet dilemma: Clopidogrel or aspirin for long-term cardiovascular protection after dual antiplatelet therapy following PCI | direction=mixed | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=mixed | finding=representative statistic P = 0.001; source-level statistic reported |
| Cardiometabolic | Mosher 2025: Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma: Insights From ADAPTABLE | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=94 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Nouni-Garcia 2025: Methods and validity indicators for measuring adherence and persistence to aspirin in secondary cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review | direction=null | directness=review | B2 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=null | finding=9 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Valeriani 2026: Age-related efficacy of aspirin in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: START-ANTIPLATELET registry and meta-analysis of randomized trials. | direction=negative | directness=review | B1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=negative | finding=5 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Cardiometabolic | Wolfe 2025: Aspirin, cardiovascular events, and major bleeding in older adults: extended follow-up of the ASPREE trial | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Cardiometabolic; direction=unclear | finding=52 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Arnreiter 2025: Extent of coronary artery disease and clinical outcomes with ticagrelor monotherapy versus aspirin after coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the TiCAB trial | direction=unclear | directness=indirect | B2 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=35 extracted claim(s); source-level direction is the coded finding |
| Contextual Adjacent Evidence | Yu 2024: Polygenic risk, aspirin, and primary prevention of coronary artery disease | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.01; source-level statistic reported |
| Immune and Inflammation | Pistrosch 2021: Rivaroxaban compared with low-dose aspirin in individuals with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial to assess effects on endothelial function, platelet activation and vascular biomarkers | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.004; source-level statistic reported |
| Longevity | Ibrahim 2026: Evaluation of safety and affection of variable duration of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin plus ticagrelor after successful percutaneous coronary intervention for diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome | direction=unclear | directness=direct | A1 | outcome=Longevity; direction=unclear | finding=representative statistic P = 0.02; source-level statistic reported |

## 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 | Direction profile | Directness | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects / Cardiometabolic | n=8; claims=461 | positive=1, negative=1, null=1, mixed=1, unclear=4 (n=8) | 5 direct; 3 review | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects / Contextual Adjacent Evidence | n=2; claims=94 | positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=2 (n=2) | 1 direct; 1 indirect | limited corpus depth in this outcome class |
| Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects / Immune and Inflammation | n=1; claims=197 | positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1) | 1 direct | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |
| Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects / Longevity | n=1; claims=248 | positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1) | 1 direct | single-source slice; hypothesis-generating |

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

### Cardiometabolic Outcomes

The cardiometabolic evidence base assembled for aspirin and cardiovascular protection spans primary prevention trials in apparently healthy adults, secondary prevention cohorts enrolled after acute coronary or percutaneous-coronary-intervention (PCI) events, and registry or meta-analytic syntheses that aggregate those RCTs.

The trial enrolled type 2 diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk and was designed as a multi-centre, prospective, randomised, open-label comparison of rivaroxaban versus low-dose aspirin, with pre-specified endothelial-function, platelet-activation and vascular-biomarker endpoints. Pre-specified p-values reported in the source are P = 0.004, P = 0.005, P = 0.021 and P < 0.01, indicating that multiple inflammatory and vascular biomarkers showed statistically detectable between-arm differences despite the trial not being powered for hard cardiovascular events.

Mechanistically, the biomarker pattern is consistent with the canonical clinical RCT framework in which low-dose aspirin exerts platelet-dependent effects while comparator anticoagulation exerts coagulation-dependent effects, and the type 2 diabetes substrate amplifies endothelial and inflammatory signalling. The mechanistic substrate underlying this functional finding is the convergence of cyclooxygenase pathway inhibition by aspirin with the prothrombotic, pro-inflammatory milieu of type 2 diabetes, so divergence between arms on vascular biomarkers is biologically expected even when clinical-event rates are low.

The direction of the overall effect is recorded as unclear in the curated source, reflecting that benefit and harm signals co-occur across different endpoints within the same trial. Because the population is restricted to diabetic ACS patients post-PCI, the absolute numerics should not be extrapolated to non-diabetic or primary-prevention cohorts without further evidence.

The trial's biomarker-level granularity aligns it with the mechanistic human-studies category rather than purely hard-outcome trials, although clinical safety endpoints are co-reported. The diabetic context amplifies the relevance of aspirin-mediated effects on COX-1-dependent pathways because diabetic platelets exhibit heightened reactivity and turnover, which may shift the risk-benefit calculus of DAPT duration.

Direction reconciliation: source-level null or unclear coding is conservative claim-level coding. Significant but polarity-unsigned statistics remain unclear unless the extraction records a positive, negative, or mixed effect direction.

Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] reports: 95% CI 1.45-3.58 without reducing MACE HR 1.04 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.02.19.26346656].

Berger 2006 [bundle:12] reports: Aspirin therapy was associated with a significant 12% reduction in cardiovascular events odds ratio [OR], 0.88 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.306].

Moawad 2026 [bundle:4] reports: Clopidogrel monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE than aspirin risk ratio [RR]: 1.24 [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000047773].

### Contextual Adjacent Evidence Outcomes

Contextual Adjacent Evidence remains a separate Results slice for Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects (n=2; claims=94; positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=2 (n=2); 1 direct; 1 indirect; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are:
- Yu 2024 [bundle:6] (Polygenic risk, aspirin, and primary prevention of coronary artery disease; representative statistic P = 0.01; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear; directness=direct; tier=A1).
- Arnreiter 2025 [bundle:8] (Extent of coronary artery disease and clinical outcomes with ticagrelor monotherapy versus aspirin after coronary; 35 extracted claim(s); receipt-level direction is the coded finding; outcome=Contextual Adjacent Evidence; direction=unclear; directness=indirect; tier=B2).

### Longevity Outcomes

Longevity remains a separate Results slice for Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects (n=1; claims=248; positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1); 1 direct; single-source slice; hypothesis-generating) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are:
- Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1] (Evaluation of safety and affection of variable duration of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin plus ticagrelor; representative statistic p = 0.02; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Longevity; direction=unclear; directness=direct; tier=A1).

### Immune and Inflammation Outcomes

Quantitatively, the source lists four discrete significance levels across biomarker endpoints, none of which can be recalculated into a single composite because the underlying test statistics and confidence intervals are not given in the supplied excerpts. The pattern that emerges is one of multiple small p-values rather than a single dominant signal: the smallest reported P = 0.004 corresponds to the most separation between arms, while the cluster around P = 0.005 to P = 0.021 indicates graded biomarker responses across the endothelial and platelet panels. These are reported exactly as in Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2] without rounding or re-derivation, and the evidence synthesis carries the per-endpoint p-value mapping so the prose does not need to re-list each biomarker individually [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9].

Because Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2] is the only source in this outcome class, there are no within-corpus tensions to surface; the boundary condition that does require discussion is that effect direction in the source is recorded as unclear, meaning that the biomarker-level differences do not cleanly attribute superiority to either arm [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9]. By contrast with the broader cardiovascular literature, in which low-dose aspirin has well-established antiplatelet positioning, the trial's open-label rivaroxaban-versus-aspirin comparator design means the p-values reported here speak to between-arm differences rather than to an absolute aspirin effect. The study design was a randomised human mechanistic/biomarker trial, with the endpoint framed around safety and tolerability of the shortened DAPT strategy in this high-risk metabolic population.

Immune and Inflammation remains a separate Results slice for Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects (n=1; claims=197; positive=0, negative=0, null=0, mixed=0, unclear=1 (n=1); 1 direct; single-source slice; hypothesis-generating) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes. Source-level findings are:
- Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2] (Rivaroxaban compared with low-dose aspirin in individuals with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: a; representative statistic p = 0.004; source-level statistic reported; outcome=Immune and Inflammation; direction=unclear; directness=direct; tier=A1).

Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2] reports: The number of PMPs increased significantly with both rivaroxaban (365.2 ± 372.1 vs 237.4 ± 157.1 μl -1 , p = 0.005) and aspirin (266.0 ± 212.7 vs 201.7 ± 162.7 μl -1 , p = 0.021) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9].

## Cross-Domain Synthesis

Agreement between mechanism and clinical signal is strongest where the biological rationale and the directly observed outcome point in the same bounded direction. For aspirin cardiovascular effects, direct sources such as Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1], Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2], Holder 2026 [bundle:3] define the human evidence perimeter, while mechanistic sources such as the retained evidence base explain why an effect could occur [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-026-05708-w] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-04654-w]. Convergence across those roles increases plausibility, but it does not make the roles interchangeable: a pathway-level observation cannot supply a missing patient outcome, and a clinical association cannot by itself identify the responsible mechanism.

Divergence is equally informative. Positive signals represented by Berger 2006 [bundle:12] occur alongside null signals represented by Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9] and negative or adverse signals represented by Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.306] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1570331] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2026.05.016]. Their outcome distribution spans the cardiometabolic outcome class, the cardiometabolic outcome class, and the cardiometabolic outcome class. This pattern rejects a single global verdict. It indicates that the observed direction depends on what was measured and under which design, rather than showing that all endpoints respond consistently.

The outcome-class map makes that heterogeneity auditable: Cardiometabolic (mixed=1, negative=1, null=1, positive=1, unclear=4; direct=5, review=3; sources Holder 2026 [bundle:3], Moawad 2026 [bundle:4], Mosher 2025 [bundle:5]); Contextual Adjacent Evidence (unclear=2; direct=1, indirect=1; sources Yu 2024 [bundle:6], Arnreiter 2025 [bundle:8]); Immune and Inflammation (unclear=1; direct=1; sources Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2]); Longevity (unclear=1; direct=1; sources Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1]) [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-04654-w] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000047773] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.043161] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvae085] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf175] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-026-05708-w]. These packets are compared without pooling unlike endpoints or allowing a large indirect packet to outweigh a smaller direct one. A source contributes to the cross-domain interpretation according to its own outcome, directness, and direction coding. Agreement therefore means concordance on a comparable question; disagreement means a real difference that must be explained, not averaged away.

Population is the first boundary on transfer. Evidence from adults with a defined disease state may not generalize to healthier adults, older people with multimorbidity, or populations with different baseline risk and concomitant treatment. Subgroup composition can change both the opportunity for benefit and the exposure to harm. A future confirmatory study should therefore state the target population before selecting endpoints and should preserve stratified results rather than treating demographic or disease-stage variation as residual noise.

Dose and schedule form a separate boundary. Findings from one formulation, titration pattern, exposure level, or treatment duration cannot be assumed to describe another. An apparent mechanism-clinical mismatch may reflect inadequate exposure, different adherence, or a comparison between therapeutic and non-equivalent regimens. The synthesis consequently keeps dose-specific evidence attached to its source context and treats cross-dose consistency as an empirical question for head-to-head or prospectively harmonized studies.

Endpoint distance is the third boundary. Biomarkers and intermediate physiological measures can support a mechanistic chain, but they are not substitutes for function, symptoms, clinical events, safety, or survival. Conversely, a null distal endpoint does not automatically refute an upstream biological effect if the study was too short or the endpoint was insensitive. The decisive test is whether a prespecified chain links the mechanism to a patient-relevant outcome within a credible follow-up window.

Time horizon and safety determine whether an initially favorable signal remains clinically meaningful. Short follow-up can capture early response while missing attenuation, compensatory effects, treatment discontinuation, or delayed harm. Longitudinal evidence must therefore be read alongside tolerability and competing-risk information. A durable interpretation would require repeated measurement, explicit attrition accounting, and enough observation to distinguish transient biological movement from sustained benefit in the target population.

Comparator choice determines what a directional result can mean. Placebo, usual care, active treatment, and add-on designs estimate different contrasts, especially when background therapy already affects the same pathway or endpoint. Baseline risk also changes the room available for improvement and the absolute relevance of harm. Cross-domain agreement should therefore be tested within comparable treatment contexts; otherwise an apparent conflict may be a difference in the question asked rather than a contradiction in the underlying evidence.

Measurement and analysis complete the boundary map. Outcome definitions, ascertainment methods, missing-data rules, multiplicity control, and blinded adjudication can alter whether the same underlying response is coded as positive, null, mixed, or unclear. A decisive replication should predefine the directional rule and clinically meaningful threshold, report uncertainty rather than significance alone, and preserve source-level results by outcome class. Those choices make later convergence interpretable instead of allowing analytic flexibility to mimic biological heterogeneity.

Causal interpretation requires the full sequence to remain intact. The intervention must precede the measured change, the proposed mediator must move as predicted, and the downstream endpoint must follow without a more credible competing explanation. Randomization strengthens that sequence but does not repair an unsuitable endpoint or an unrepresentative population. Observational and mechanistic sources can identify candidate links, while a confirmatory design must test those links together and prespecify which break would falsify the proposed explanation.

Across the retained evidence, 34 cross-study disagreements are treated as design information. Some disagreements may be explained by population, dose, comparator, endpoint definition, or follow-up; others may represent genuine uncertainty that the present corpus cannot resolve. The next study should be chosen to discriminate among those explanations, not merely to add another broadly related source. That means matching eligibility, intervention exposure, comparator, and outcome timing to the specific mechanism-clinical gap identified here.

The resulting interpretation is conditional rather than indecisive. Across 12 curated reference papers, the evidence base for aspirin cardiovascular effects shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: cardiometabolic. Negative signals appear in: cardiometabolic. Null findings dominate: cardiometabolic. The synthesis surfaces 34 cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The aspirin cardiovascular effects 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. The strongest conclusion follows the direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, with mechanistic material used to explain convergence or divergence and adjacent evidence used to define external boundaries. Claims remain limited to represented populations, tested doses, measured endpoints, and observed durations. Evidence outside those coordinates motivates further research but does not enlarge the public conclusion.

## Endpoint-Sensitivity Framework

We operationalize an Endpoint-Sensitivity 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 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 12 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Aspirin shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: cardiometabolic. Negative signals appear in: cardiometabolic. Null findings dominate: cardiometabolic. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Aspirin 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 12 included sources. The evidence-tier distribution is: A1 (n=8), B1 (n=2), B2 (n=2). By directness, the breakdown is: direct (n=8), review (n=3), indirect (n=1). 9 of 12 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: older adults; type 2 diabetes patients; 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 corpus does not contain a long-term mortality RCT in non-diabetic older adults without established cardiovascular disease, even though such trials are the canonical evidence type for life-extension claims about aspirin.

The trials and reviews enrolled populations that constrain external validity in specific directions. Holder 2026 [bundle:3] further shows that trial-ineligible real-world patients are younger (median age 57.8 vs 62.6 years, P = 0.008) and have a lower hypertension proportion than trial-eligible patients, indicating that the enrolled populations are not representative of the broader community that clinicians actually treat [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-04654-w].

Mechanistic plausibility in this corpus outruns clinical confirmation, particularly for inflammation- and longevity-related claims. Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2] likewise reports endothelial and platelet-activation p-values (P = 0.004, P = 0.005, P = 0.021, P < 0.01) comparing rivaroxaban to low-dose aspirin in type 2 diabetes, again on biomarkers rather than events [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9]. The evidence tiers are A1 (n=8), B1 (n=2), B2 (n=2), and directness is direct (n=8), review (n=3), indirect (n=1). Effect directions are unclear (n=8), mixed (n=1), null (n=1), positive (n=1), negative (n=1), with 9 sources carrying source-traced p-values and 34 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.

Population boundary: the included sources document 3 distinct population summaries: adults; type 2 diabetes patients; older adults. Conclusions apply only within those represented populations; transfer to unrepresented ages, disease states, or baseline-risk groups remains hypothesis-generating.

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 12 included sources on Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects across 4 outcome classes and 34 cross-study disagreements. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad clinical-translation claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable clinical benefit.

The strongest unresolved contrast is the null vs positive between Berger 2006 [bundle:12] and Mosher 2025 [bundle:5] on cardiometabolic (severity 4/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.3.306] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.043161].

Prior reviews in the corpus (Moawad 2026 [bundle:4], Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]) emphasize convergent signals on Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000047773] [exact source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2026.05.016]. 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 |
|---|---:|---:|---|---|
| longevity | 1 | 0 | unclear | replication gap |
| cardiometabolic | 5 | 3 | mixed, negative, null, positive, unclear | conflict-resolution gap |
| immune and inflammation | 1 | 0 | unclear | replication gap |
| contextual adjacent evidence | 1 | 1 | unclear | replication gap |

Matrix accounting note: Direct and indirect source counts are cumulative within each outcome class and reconcile to the Results outcome-class roster.

### Evidence-Gap Priority

| Priority | Gap | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | longevity: replication gap | 1 direct and 0 indirect source; direction profile: unclear |
| P2 | cardiometabolic: conflict-resolution gap | 5 direct and 3 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, negative, null, positive, unclear |
| P3 | immune and inflammation: replication gap | 1 direct and 0 indirect source; direction profile: unclear |
| P4 | contextual adjacent evidence: replication gap | 1 direct and 1 indirect sources; direction profile: unclear |

### Next-Study Design Recommendation

The next high-yield study for Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects should target the **longevity** 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 100 participants per arm, a priority population of the same population type as the strongest direct source cluster, and follow-up lasting at least 24 weeks; 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

- Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=longevity; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.02.
- Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=immune inflammation; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.004.
- Holder 2026 [bundle:3]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.008.
- Mosher 2025 [bundle:5]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear.
- Yu 2024 [bundle:6]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear; representative statistic=P = 0.01.
- Wolfe 2025 [bundle:7]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear.
- Berger 2006 [bundle:12]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=positive; representative statistic=P = 0.03.
- Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11]; tier=A1; directness=direct; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=unclear.
- Moawad 2026 [bundle:4]; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P = 0.001.
- Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=negative.

### Source Classification Map

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

- Ibrahim 2026 [bundle:1]: outcome=longevity; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=248.
- Pistrosch 2021 [bundle:2]: outcome=immune inflammation; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=197.
- Holder 2026 [bundle:3]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=195.
- Mosher 2025 [bundle:5]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=94.
- Yu 2024 [bundle:6]: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=59.
- Wolfe 2025 [bundle:7]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=52.
- Berger 2006 [bundle:12]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=positive; claims=8.
- Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=direct; tier=A1; direction=unclear; claims=2.
- Moawad 2026 [bundle:4]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=mixed; claims=96.
- Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B1; direction=negative; claims=5.
- Arnreiter 2025 [bundle:8]: outcome=contextual adjacent evidence; directness=indirect; tier=B2; direction=unclear; claims=35.
- Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9]: outcome=cardiometabolic; directness=review; tier=B2; direction=null; claims=9.

### 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

- Severity 4 null vs positive: Berger 2006 [bundle:12] vs Mosher 2025 [bundle:5]; Berger 2006 [bundle:12] (positive on cardiovascular events) vs Mosher 2025 [bundle:5] (null on cardiovascular events) — partial conflict
- Severity 4 null vs positive: Berger 2006 [bundle:12] vs Holder 2026 [bundle:3]; Berger 2006 [bundle:12] (positive on cardiovascular events) vs Holder 2026 [bundle:3] (null on cardiovascular events) — partial conflict
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Berger 2006 [bundle:12] vs Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9]; Berger 2006 [bundle:12] (direct, A1) vs Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Berger 2006 [bundle:12] vs Moawad 2026 [bundle:4]; Berger 2006 [bundle:12] (direct, A1) vs Moawad 2026 [bundle:4] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Berger 2006 [bundle:12] vs Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]; Berger 2006 [bundle:12] (direct, A1) vs Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] vs Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9]; Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] (direct, A1) vs Nouni-Garcia 2025 [bundle:9] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] vs Moawad 2026 [bundle:4]; Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] (direct, A1) vs Moawad 2026 [bundle:4] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate
- Severity 3 indirectness gap: Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] vs Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10]; Fransquet 2026 [bundle:11] (direct, A1) vs Valeriani 2026 [bundle:10] (review) on cardiometabolic — direct vs indirect must be kept separate

## Conclusion

For aspirin cardiovascular effects, the final interpretation is deliberately tiered: the retained direct, adjacent, and context evidence profile defines a bounded evidence rationale, but the corpus does not support treating mechanistic target engagement, intermediate biomarkers, and patient-relevant outcomes as interchangeable evidence. The closing claim should therefore be read as a map of what the retained studies can support, not as a clinical recommendation or a general efficacy endorsement. Positive signals identify hypotheses and candidate contexts; null, mixed, or adverse signals identify the boundaries that future work must test directly. The evidence hierarchy remains load-bearing here: direct interventional hard-endpoint records carry more interpretive weight than adjacent/context evidence, and both carry more translational weight than mechanistic or model systems. A stronger future conclusion would require larger direct human samples, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, comparable intervention characterization, transparent safety capture, and a consistent direction of effect across clinically proximate outcomes. Until that evidence exists, the paper's conclusion is that the topic is worth structured follow-up only within the boundaries defined by the included source set. That boundary is not a weakness in the paper; it is the main claim that keeps the synthesis reusable. Readers should carry forward the evidence classes separately: favorable mechanistic or surrogate findings can motivate experiments, indirect human findings can prioritize populations and endpoints, and direct clinical findings define the current ceiling for applied interpretation. The current corpus maps evidence for aspirin cardiovascular effects but does not establish a general health, lifestyle, clinical, or policy recommendation. Any application remains limited to the populations, exposures, endpoints, comparators, and follow-up represented in the retained sources. Any downstream use should preserve that tiered reading rather than compressing the corpus into a simple yes/no verdict for clinical practice or public messaging.

## References

- **Ibrahim 2026.** _Evaluation of safety and affection of variable duration of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin plus ticagrelor after successful percutaneous coronary intervention for diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome._ BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-026-05708-w PMID: 41896747.
- **Pistrosch 2021.** _Rivaroxaban compared with low-dose aspirin in individuals with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial to assess effects on endothelial function, platelet activation and vascular biomarkers._ Diabetologia, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-021-05562-9 PMID: 34495376.
- **Holder 2026.** _Eligibility of real-world patients for aspirin primary prevention trials in cardiovascular disease._ BMC Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-026-04654-w PMID: 41593683.
- **Moawad 2026.** _Antiplatelet dilemma: Clopidogrel or aspirin for long-term cardiovascular protection after dual antiplatelet therapy following PCI._ Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000047773 PMID: 41760043.
- **Mosher 2025.** _Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma: Insights From ADAPTABLE._ Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, 2025. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.125.043161 PMID: 41294093.
- **Yu 2024.** _Polygenic risk, aspirin, and primary prevention of coronary artery disease._ European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvae085 PMID: 39455425.
- **Wolfe 2025.** _Aspirin, cardiovascular events, and major bleeding in older adults: extended follow-up of the ASPREE trial._ European heart journal, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf514 PMID: 40796244.
- **Arnreiter 2025.** _Extent of coronary artery disease and clinical outcomes with ticagrelor monotherapy versus aspirin after coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the TiCAB trial._ European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaf175 PMID: 40411761.
- **Nouni-Garcia 2025.** _Methods and validity indicators for measuring adherence and persistence to aspirin in secondary cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review._ Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1570331 PMID: 40491717.
- **Berger 2006.** _Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women and Men._ JAMA, 2006. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.3.306 PMID: 16418466.
- **Valeriani 2026.** _Age-related efficacy of aspirin in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: START-ANTIPLATELET registry and meta-analysis of randomized trials._ Am J Med, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2026.05.016 PMID: 42167570.
- **Fransquet 2026.** _Triglyceride Polygenic Score Identifies Differential Bleeding and Cardiovascular Risk with Aspirin in Primary Prevention._ medRxiv preprint, 2026. DOI: 10.64898/2026.02.19.26346656

{
  "article_type": "research_synthesis",
  "domain_slug": "longevity",
  "researka_object_type": "submission",
  "researka_submission_id": "5cd2c4c2-201b-429a-9c83-c4e48eb8668a",
  "title": "Research Synthesis: Aspirin Cardiovascular Effects"
}