Preface

Stem cell exhaustion is a recognised hallmark of ageing describing the age-related decline in number and regenerative function of tissue-resident adult stem cells (haematopoietic, mesenchymal, muscle satellite, neural, intestinal), driven by DNA damage, telomere attrition, epigenetic drift, mitochondrial dysfunction and a deteriorating niche/systemic milieu.[1][2][3][4] It is a biological construct and research target, not a discrete clinical diagnosis with an ICD-10 code or a licensed treatment pathway. No intervention is approved by the MHRA, EMA or FDA for “stem cell exhaustion” or for extending human lifespan; every option below is therefore off-label, experimental, or research-only, and all should be positioned as adjunctive to, never a replacement for, conventional primary and secondary care.[5][6][7]

1. Scope

– Covered: Definition and pathophysiology of stem cell exhaustion relevant to ageing; the human evidence base for interventions plausibly targeting it (senolytics, NAD⁺ precursors, mTOR/AMPK-directed dietary-restriction mimetics, exercise, dietary restriction, mesenchymal stromal/stem cell [MSC] infusions); patient selection, assessment, monitoring and safety in a UK independent longevity clinic.

– Not covered: Licensed haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological disease; established regenerative/orthopaedic cell therapies for specific structural indications; telomere biology disorders and bone-marrow-failure syndromes (these are secondary-care haematology/genetics diagnoses); unregulated commercial “stem cell tourism”.[8][9][10]

– Positioning: Content is adjunctive and works alongside conventional care. Where an approach lacks robust human outcome data this is stated explicitly.

2. Background and pathophysiology

Adult stem cells maintain lifelong tissue homeostasis and repair; their functional attrition is thought to contribute to age-related tissue decline.[11][2] Human-relevant mechanisms with the strongest support are:

– DNA damage and telomere attrition. Somatic mutation and telomere shortening accumulate approximately linearly across the human lifespan in haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (~17 mutations/cell/year; ~30 bp telomere loss/year), with abrupt loss of clonal diversity and expansion of driver-mutant clones after ~70 years. Critically short telomeres cause bone-marrow failure in telomere biology disorders and limit haematopoietic reserve under proliferative stress.[12][3][8][9][10]

– Clonal haematopoiesis (CHIP). Age-related clonal expansion driven by mutations (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, splicing factors, TP53, PPM1D) is a directly measurable human correlate of an ageing/exhausting HSC pool and carries independent risk of haematological malignancy and cardiovascular disease.[12][13][14]

– Epigenetic drift, proteostasis loss, mitochondrial dysfunction and nutrient-sensing dysregulation (mTOR/AMPK, sirtuins/NAD⁺) impair self-renewal and quiescence.[11][2][15][4]

– Niche and systemic factors — inflammageing, senescent-cell burden/SASP, and circadian disruption — degrade the stem-cell environment (extrinsic ageing).[1][15][16]

Figure 3 Signaling pathways involved in aging of stem cells. Major signaling pathways related to aging of stem cells are listed in groups according to stem cell functions that they regulate.

Preclinical only (mechanistic plausibility, not human evidence): heterochronic parabiosis/young plasma; NAD⁺ precursor rescue of muscle/neural/intestinal stem cells; rapamycin and metformin rejuvenation of murine HSCs/NSCs; cyclin D1 restoration in aged muscle satellite cells by exercise; IFI16/STING-axis targeting of telomere-dysfunctional HSCs.[18][19][20][10] These animal/in-vitro data should not be presented to patients as established human benefits.

3. Evidence base and grading

Overall, the field rests on mechanistic and preclinical data plus small, short (<3 month), mostly surrogate-endpoint early-phase human trials. No intervention has demonstrated a mortality or hard-morbidity benefit attributable to reversing stem cell exhaustion.[5][6][7] GRADE-style certainty by outcome:

Intervention / outcome	Evidence & certainty	Key limitations	Strength of recommendation	References
MSC infusion (Lomecel-B / UC-MSC) → physical function in frailty	Small phase I/IIb RCTs (n≈15–148); dose-dependent 6-minute-walk gains, QoL improvement, TNF-α/IL-17 reduction. Low certainty	Small samples, short follow-up, surrogate/functional endpoints, no mortality data, IV pulmonary-entrapment safety concern	Conditional / only in research (ideally within trials/registries)	[21], [22], [23], [24]
Senolytics (D+Q, fisetin) → senescence markers/physical function	Multiple phase I/II trials; reduce p16/p21⁺ cells and SASP; bone/function endpoints largely negative except in high-senescence-burden subgroups. Low certainty	Open-label training effects, negative primary endpoints, heterogeneity, off-target toxicity	Only in research for longevity indications	[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
NAD⁺ precursors (NR, NMN) → healthspan/metabolic/functional outcomes	≥28 RCTs; reliable target engagement (raise NAD⁺) but functional/metabolic outcomes heterogeneous, mostly null. Low certainty (safety Moderate)	Underpowered, surrogate endpoints, exaggerated claims in literature; no IV outcome trials	Recommend against routine use for hard outcomes; conditional for research	[7], [31], [32], [33]
Exercise (resistance + aerobic) → satellite-cell content/response	Human RCTs + meta-analysis: increases Pax7⁺ satellite cells and acute response, better in older/untrained. Moderate certainty (for the biomarker); overall health benefit High from wider literature	Biomarker/surrogate endpoint for “exhaustion” specifically; heterogeneity	Strong recommendation (proven, safe, foundational)	[19], [34], [35], [36]
Dietary restriction / CR mimetics (metformin, rapamycin) → stem-cell rejuvenation	Human stem-cell-specific outcome data absent; geroscience trials (e.g. metformin) ongoing. Very low certainty for this indication	Indirectness (mostly rodent), no human stem-cell endpoints	Only in research for this indication	[5], [16], [18], [37]

Cross-cutting GRADE concerns: high risk of bias (open-label, small n), inconsistency, marked indirectness (surrogate biomarkers rather than clinical outcomes), imprecision, and probable publication bias favouring positive small studies.[31][7]

4. Patient selection and indications

There is no validated threshold that defines “stem cell exhaustion” in an individual patient, so selection is phenotype- and risk-based, not diagnostic.

– Reasonable candidates (for evidence-based, low-risk measures — exercise, lifestyle): essentially all ageing adults; strongest rationale in middle-aged adults with cardiometabolic risk and older adults with early frailty/sarcopenia.[34][35][36]

– Candidates to consider for trial enrolment (higher-risk/experimental options): older adults (≈70–85) with mild–moderate frailty and elevated inflammatory markers mirror the Lomecel-B/UC-MSC trial populations (CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale 5–6, 6-minute walk 200–400 m, raised TNF-α). Senolytic benefit signals concentrate in those with the highest baseline senescent-cell burden.[21][24][26][28][29]

– Exclusion / caution groups: active or recent malignancy or high malignancy risk (stem-cell/growth-promoting and pro-proliferative concerns; CHIP with cytopenias needs haematology review); pregnancy/breastfeeding; significant thrombocytopenia or bleeding risk (relevant to navitoclax-class and dasatinib); poorly controlled cardiopulmonary disease (dasatinib fluid retention/pleural effusion); on drugs with major interactions (see §7).[12][14][27][38]

– Regulatory/ethical status: All pharmacological and cell-based options are off-label or unlicensed for longevity. Best practice is delivery within a clinical trial or prospective registry; where offered outside trials, only as adjunctive care with documented, explicit informed consent stating the experimental nature and absence of proven hard-outcome benefit. Unlicensed MSC products for anti-ageing are not MHRA-approved and IV administration carries specific safety concerns.[5][6][22]

5. Assessment and baseline work-up

– History and examination: comorbidities, medications, malignancy/bleeding history, frailty and falls, functional goals; distinguish performance-seeking from healthspan goals.

– Functional/scoring tools: Clinical Frailty Scale, gait speed/4-metre walk, 6-minute walk test, grip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery, timed up-and-go — these are the validated endpoints used in the frailty trials and give meaningful longitudinal anchors.[21][23][24][34]

– Baseline investigations: FBC with film (screen for cytopenias/possible CHIP), U&E, LFTs, HbA1c/lipids, hs-CRP and where available IL-6/TNF-α (inflammageing context); consider baseline before any senolytic/MSC intervention.[1][24]

– Ageing/stem-cell biomarkers (interpret cautiously): leukocyte telomere length and epigenetic “clocks” are research biomarkers — do not infer individual clinical benefit or use them to justify therapy, as the biomarker-to-outcome linkage is not robust. CHIP testing (NGS) is specialised; abnormal results warrant haematology referral, not longevity intervention.[4][6][7][12][14]

– Document at baseline: functional test values, inflammatory markers, blood counts, medication list, consent record, and pre-specified stop/response criteria.

Risk stratification: low risk (lifestyle only); moderate risk (older/frail, considering MSC trial); high harm risk (malignancy, cytopenia, bleeding, polypharmacy — pharmacological/cell interventions off the table outside specialist trials).

6. Dosing regimens and practical implementation

Robust human data (recommendable):

– Exercise (Strong). Combined progressive resistance training ≥2×/week plus aerobic/high-intensity interval training ~1×/week; ≥12 weeks improves satellite-cell content and the regenerative response in older adults. Lifelong recreational activity preserves a more youthful satellite-cell/innervation profile. This is the only intervention here with strong, safe human support.[34][35][36]

Extrapolated / early-phase (caution — research settings):

– MSC infusion (research only). Trial regimens: single IV allogeneic bone-marrow MSC (Lomecel-B) with dose-dependent signal at ~100–200 million cells; UC-MSC IV in phase I/II. Not standardised, not licensed; IV route carries pulmonary-entrapment risk.[21][23][24][22]

– Senolytics (research only). Intermittent (“hit-and-run”) dosing studied: dasatinib 100 mg/day + quercetin 1000–1250 mg/day for 2–3 consecutive days, repeated weekly to every 2 weeks; fisetin ~20 mg/kg/day for 2–3 consecutive days per cycle. Efficacy for longevity endpoints unproven; benefit signals limited to high-senescence-burden subgroups.[39][28][30][26][29]

– NAD⁺ precursors (not recommended for hard outcomes). NR studied up to 1000–2000 mg/day and NMN in comparable ranges for weeks–months; reliably raise NAD⁺ but without consistent functional benefit. No validated IV NAD⁺ outcome data despite commercial use.[31][32][33][7]

– CR / CR mimetics (research only for this indication). Caloric restriction and mimetics (metformin, rapamycin) rejuvenate stem cells in animals; human stem-cell outcome data are lacking, and metformin/rapamycin remain investigational for geroscience.[18][37][5]

7. Monitoring, safety and follow-up

– Monitoring plan: repeat functional tests (gait speed, 6-minute walk, grip) and inflammatory markers at baseline, ~4–12 weeks, and 6 months; FBC and LFTs/U&E for any pharmacological agent. Telomere/epigenetic clocks may be tracked for research but must not drive clinical decisions.[6][7]

– Adverse effects:

– Senolytics: dasatinib — cytopenias/thrombocytopenia, fluid retention, pleural effusion, GI upset, headache; quercetin/fisetin generally well tolerated; navitoclax-class — dose-limiting thrombocytopenia (avoid). Serious events are uncommon in short trials but one hospitalisation for pneumonia was reported in an IPF study.[27][38][30][39]

– NAD⁺ precursors: pruritus, flushing (less than nicotinic acid), GI symptoms, minor triacylglycerol rise; safe over weeks–months.[33]

– MSC IV: infusion reactions and theoretical pulmonary entrapment/embolism; no treatment-emergent SAEs in small frailty trials but numbers are tiny.[22][23][24]

– Actions on abnormal findings: new/worsening cytopenia → stop and refer haematology (also consider CHIP/marrow pathology); functional decline or SAE → cease; effusion/dyspnoea on dasatinib → stop and investigate.

– Interactions: dasatinib is a CYP3A4 substrate with major interactions (azoles, macrolides, anticoagulants/antiplatelets — bleeding risk); metformin/rapamycin add metabolic and immunosuppressive considerations; stacking multiple experimental agents compounds unknown risk and is discouraged.[38][40]

– Special populations: avoid all experimental options in pregnancy/breastfeeding; dose-adjust or avoid in renal/hepatic impairment; in frailty and extremes of age favour exercise and de-prescribing over experimental agents; be alert to CHIP prevalence in older adults.[12][29]

8. Contraindications and cautions

– Absolute: pregnancy/breastfeeding for pharmacological/cell interventions; active malignancy for pro-proliferative or unlicensed cell therapies; significant active bleeding or severe thrombocytopenia for dasatinib/navitoclax-class.[27][38]

– Relative (specialist input required): CHIP or unexplained cytopenias (haematology); significant cardiopulmonary disease (dasatinib); polypharmacy with CYP3A4 interactions; hepatic/renal impairment.[12][14][38]

– Harm likely to outweigh benefit with current evidence: routine use of NAD⁺ precursors, senolytics or MSC infusions to “treat stem cell exhaustion” outside a trial, and any IV unlicensed stem-cell product marketed for anti-ageing.[6][22][7]

9. Practical management scenarios

– Scenario A — Middle-aged adult with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors. Offer structured exercise (resistance + aerobic/HIIT) and dietary optimisation as first-line, evidence-based measures (Strong). Optimise conventional cardiometabolic risk (BP, lipids, glycaemia) per NICE. Do not initiate senolytics/NAD⁺/MSC for longevity outside a trial (Only in research). Steps: assess functional/inflammatory baseline → shared decision-making emphasising proven vs experimental → prescribe exercise → reassess at 12 weeks/6 months → escalate conventional risk management as indicated.[34][19][35]

– Scenario B — Older, frail patient with multimorbidity. Offer tailored resistance/aerobic training and comprehensive geriatric optimisation (deprescribing, nutrition, falls) (Strong). Consider referral to an MSC frailty trial or registry if eligibility mirrors trial criteria (CFS 5–6, 6-minute walk 200–400 m, raised TNF-α) (Conditional/research). Avoid dasatinib-based senolytics given cytopenia/effusion and interaction risk in multimorbidity. Escalate/refer for any cytopenia or functional decline.[34][36][21][24][38]

– Scenario C — Adjunct to conventional specialist care. Coordinate with the treating specialist; keep experimental longevity measures additive and non-interfering. Offer exercise/lifestyle; restrict senolytics, NAD⁺ and cell therapies to trial settings with explicit consent; screen for drug interactions before adding anything (Only in research / adjunct with consent). Stop if it conflicts with the primary treatment or if adverse effects emerge.[5][6][40]

For each scenario: document assessment, consent (experimental nature, no proven hard-outcome benefit), initiation protocol, monitoring schedule (§7), and predefined stop/referral criteria.

10. Research gaps and future directions

– No hard-outcome data: effects of any intervention on mortality, incident disease or validated function attributable specifically to reversing stem cell exhaustion remain unproven.[5][6][7]

– Surrogate-to-outcome linkage: whether raising NAD⁺, clearing senescent cells, or increasing satellite-cell counts translates to clinical benefit is unresolved.[31][7][35]

– Patient stratification: senolytic responses appear concentrated in high-senescence-burden individuals — biomarkers to select and dose patients are needed.[26][28][29]

– Optimal regimens: dose, frequency, route (notably unproven IV NAD⁺/MSC), duration and long-term safety are undefined.[39][7]

– CHIP interface: how clonal haematopoiesis interacts with senolytic/senomorphic and NAD⁺ strategies is unknown and safety-relevant.[12][29]

– Priority: current practice for pharmacological and cell-based interventions should be confined to well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with clinically meaningful endpoints and to prospective registries; exercise and lifestyle can be recommended now.[5][7]

References

1. How stem cells respond to infection, inflammation and ageing. Poirier EZ. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2025;25(12):900-911. doi:10.1038/s41577-025-01203-z.
2. Mechanistic Insights Into Stem Cell Aging: Pathways and Processes. Fauzi A, Wong CZE, Tee PYE, et al. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development. 2026;230:112160. doi:10.1016/j.mad.2026.112160.
3. The central role of DNA damage in the ageing process. Schumacher B, Pothof J, Vijg J, Hoeijmakers JHJ. Nature. 2021;592(7856):695-703. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03307-7.
4. Premature aging and metabolic diseases: the impact of telomere attrition. Jinesh S, Özüpek B, Aditi P. Frontiers in Aging. 2025;6:1541127. doi:10.3389/fragi.2025.1541127.
5. Drugs Targeting Mechanisms of Aging to Delay Age-Related Disease and Promote Healthspan: Proceedings of a National Institute on Aging Workshop. Espinoza SE, Khosla S, Baur JA, de Cabo R, Musi N. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2023;78(Suppl 1):53-60. doi:10.1093/gerona/glad034.
6. Biomarkers of aging: from molecules and surrogates to physiology and function. Furrer R, Handschin C. Physiological Reviews. 2025;105(3):1609-1694. doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2024.
7. NAD⁺ Supplementation for Anti-Aging and Wellness: A PRISMA-guided Systematic Review of Preclinical and Clinical Evidence. Gallagher C, Emmanuel OO. Ageing Research Reviews. 2026;116:103057. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2026.103057.
8. Human Length Telomeres Restrict the Regenerative Potential of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Mice. Rowe MM, Tober J, Ortiz V, et al. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2026;302(9):113364. doi:10.1016/j.jbc.2026.113364.
9. Telomere Length Dynamics in Normal Hematopoiesis and in Disease States Characterized by Increased Stem Cell Turnover. Brümmendorf TH, Balabanov S. Leukemia. 2006;20(10):1706-16. doi:10.1038/sj.leu.2404339.
10. Hematopoiesis under telomere attrition at the single-cell resolution. Thongon N, Ma F, Santoni A, et al. Nature Communications. 2021;12(1):6850. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27206-7.
11. The Role of the Stem Cell Epigenome in Normal Aging and Rejuvenative Therapy. Jayarajan J, Milsom MD. Human Molecular Genetics. 2020;29(R2):R236-R247. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddaa167.
12. Clonal dynamics of haematopoiesis across the human lifespan. Mitchell E, Spencer Chapman M, Williams N, et al. Nature. 2022;606(7913):343-350. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04786-y.
13. Clonal evolution of hematopoietic stem cells after autologous stem cell transplantation. Uryu H, Saeki K, Haeno H, et al. Nature Genetics. 2025;57(7):1695-1707. doi:10.1038/s41588-025-02235-w.
14. Telomere attrition becomes an instrument for clonal selection in aging hematopoiesis and leukemogenesis. McLoughlin MA, Cheloor Kovilakam S, Dunn WG, et al. Nature Genetics. 2025;57(9):2215-2225. doi:10.1038/s41588-025-02296-x.
15. A Stem Cell Aging Framework, From Mechanisms to Interventions. Liu B, Qu J, Zhang W, Izpisua Belmonte JC, Liu GH. Cell Reports. 2022;41(3):111451. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111451.
16. Cellular senescence and senolytics: the path to the clinic. Chaib S, Tchkonia T, Kirkland JL. Nature Medicine. 2022;28(8):1556-1568. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01923-y.
17. Stem cell aging: mechanisms, regulators and therapeutic opportunities. Oh J, Lee YD, Wagers AJ. Nature Medicine. 2014;20(8):870-80. doi:10.1038/nm.3651.
18. Ageing and rejuvenation of tissue stem cells and their niches. Brunet A, Goodell MA, Rando TA. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2023;24(1):45-62. doi:10.1038/s41580-022-00510-w.
19. Metabolic regulation in adult and aging skeletal muscle stem cells. Sartorelli V, Ciuffoli V. Genes & Development. 2025;39(3-4):186-208. doi:10.1101/gad.352277.124.
20. Exercise rejuvenates quiescent skeletal muscle stem cells in old mice through restoration of Cyclin D1. Brett JO, Arjona M, Ikeda M, et al. Nature Metabolism. 2020;2(4):307-317. doi:10.1038/s42255-020-0190-0.
21. Challenges in developing Geroscience trials. Rolland Y, Sierra F, Ferrucci L, et al. Nature Communications. 2023;14(1):5038. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39786-7.
22. Recent clinical trials with stem cells to slow or reverse normal aging processes. Garay RP. Frontiers in Aging. 2023;4:1148926. doi:10.3389/fragi.2023.1148926.
23. Recent progress in stem cell and immune cell-based interventions for aging and age-related disorders. He L, Han D, Zong F, et al. Frontiers in Aging. 2025;6:1638168. doi:10.3389/fragi.2025.1638168.
24. Safety and Efficacy of Umbilical Cord Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of Patients With Aging Frailty: A Phase I/Ii Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Zhu Y, Huang C, Zheng L, et al. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2024;15(1):122. doi:10.1186/s13287-024-03707-2.
25. Targeting DNA damage in ageing: towards supercharging DNA repair. Bujarrabal-Dueso A, Garinis GA, Robbins PD, Vijg J, Schumacher B. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery. 2025;24(10):785-807. doi:10.1038/s41573-025-01212-6.
26. Translating cellular senescence research into clinical practice for metabolic disease. Chaib S, Palmer AK, Wyles SP, et al. Nature Reviews. Endocrinology. 2026;22(2):102-115. doi:10.1038/s41574-025-01187-9.
27. The Achilles’ heel of cancer survivors: fundamentals of accelerated cellular senescence. Shafqat S, Arana Chicas E, Shafqat A, Hashmi SK. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2022;132(13):e158452. doi:10.1172/JCI158452.
28. Geroscience. Kritchevsky SB, Cummings SR. JAMA. 2025;334(12):1094-1102. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.11289.
29. Deconstructing senescence phenotypes in cells of the bone and bone marrow. Hofbauer LC, Rauner M. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2026;136(7):e204645. doi:10.1172/JCI204645.
30. Cellular Senescence, Inflammaging and Cardiovascular Disease. Zanders L, Arifaj D, Wagner JUG, Dimmeler S. Immunological Reviews. 2026;337(1):e70084. doi:10.1111/imr.70084.
31. What Is Really Known About the Effects of Nicotinamide Riboside Supplementation in Humans. Damgaard MV, Treebak JT. Science Advances. 2023;9(29):eadi4862. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi4862.
32. Dietary Supplementation With NAD+-Boosting Compounds in Humans: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Freeberg KA, Udovich CC, Martens CR, Seals DR, Craighead DH. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2023;78(12):2435-2448. doi:10.1093/gerona/glad106.
33. NAD + metabolism as a target for metabolic health: have we found the silver bullet?. Connell NJ, Houtkooper RH, Schrauwen P. Diabetologia. 2019;62(6):888-899. doi:10.1007/s00125-019-4831-3.
34. Prolonged Exercise Training Improves the Acute Type II Muscle Fibre Satellite Cell Response in Healthy Older Men. Snijders T, Nederveen JP, Bell KE, et al. The Journal of Physiology. 2019;597(1):105-119. doi:10.1113/JP276260.
35. Pax7 + Satellite Cells in Human Skeletal Muscle After Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dewi L, Lin YC, Nicholls A, et al. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 2023;53(2):457-480. doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01767-z.
36. Preserved Stem Cell Content and Innervation Profile of Elderly Human Skeletal Muscle With Lifelong Recreational Exercise. Soendenbroe C, Dahl CL, Meulengracht C, et al. The Journal of Physiology. 2022;600(8):1969-1989. doi:10.1113/JP282677.
37. Caloric Restriction Rejuvenates Aged Adult Stem Cells: From Mechanisms to Interventions. Chai Y, Liu X, Bi J, et al. Ageing Research Reviews. 2026;120:103204. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2026.103204.
38. Breaking barriers in pulmonary health of patients with metabolic diseases: senolytics and beyond. Rennerova M, Zaloudikova M, Haluzik M, Stemberkova Hubackova S. Frontiers in Aging. 2026;7:1812724. doi:10.3389/fragi.2026.1812724.
39. Fueling the Fire: Metabolic Dysfunction and Senescence as Drivers of Lung Aging and Disease. Kliment CR, Gurkar AU, Cárdenes N, et al. Physiological Reviews. 2026;106(3):1535-1591. doi:10.1152/physrev.00024.2025.
40. Impact of Geroscience on Therapeutic Strategies for Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease: JACC Scientific Statement. Forman DE, Kuchel GA, Newman JC, et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2023;82(7):631-647. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.038.