Clinical Knowledge Summary: Bone marrow and adipose-derived cell therapies (Longevity Medicine)

1. Scope

This summary covers autologous and allogeneic cell therapies derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue used with the intention of slowing biological ageing, improving physical function, or treating age-related decline in a UK private longevity setting. It spans four broad product categories that differ enormously in regulatory status and evidence:

– Bone marrow-derived allogeneic mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (BM-MSCs) — including the culture-expanded product laromestrocel (Lomecel-B), the most clinically advanced longevity-relevant cell therapy.[1][2]

– Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) — minimally manipulated, used mainly for musculoskeletal indications.[3]

– Adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) — freshly isolated, heterogeneous.[4][5]

– Culture-expanded adipose-derived MSCs (AD-MSCs/ASCs).[6][7]

Not covered: licensed haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological/oncological disease; MSC-derived exosomes/extracellular vesicles (preclinical only for ageing); cosmetic/aesthetic-only applications; and cell therapy for defined organ-specific disease (e.g.[8][9] Crohn’s perianal fistula, critical limb ischaemia) except where safety data inform longevity use.[10][6]

All content is framed as adjunctive to conventional primary/secondary care, never a substitute for guideline-based management of cardiometabolic risk, frailty, or osteoarthritis.

Overarching evidence position: There is no high-certainty evidence that any bone marrow- or adipose-derived cell therapy slows human biological ageing, extends lifespan, or reduces all-cause mortality. The strongest longevity-adjacent signal is improvement in physical function in frailty, from small early-phase RCTs. Most other applications are experimental or research-only, and much of the mechanistic rationale rests on preclinical (animal/in-vitro) data.

2. Background and pathophysiology

Biological rationale (human-relevant mechanisms):

– Ageing involves stem cell exhaustion, chronic sterile inflammation (“inflammageing”), cellular senescence, and impaired tissue repair. MSCs are hypothesised to counter these largely through paracrine and immunomodulatory signalling rather than engraftment/differentiation — secreting anti-inflammatory and trophic factors and modulating T- and B-cell activity.[11][9][2][8]

– In the phase II CRATUS frailty trial, allogeneic BM-MSCs produced measurable reductions in serum TNF-α and in activated T-cells and B-cell intracellular TNF-α, providing direct human mechanistic evidence of an immunomodulatory effect.[2]

Preclinical subsection (animal/in-vitro only — mechanistic plausibility, not clinical proof):

– In aged/progeroid mice, AD-MSCs promoted mitophagy and mitochondrial quality control, delaying replicative senescence and improving progeroid phenotypes.[12]

– BM-MSC-derived extracellular vesicles reduced senescent-cell burden and extended healthspan/lifespan in Ercc1 and other murine ageing models.[13]

– MSCs/EVs shifted multi-organ “omic” profiles of aged rodents towards younger patterns; >70% of ESC-EV-enriched microRNAs target longevity-associated genes.[14]

– Proteomic work in aged mice attributes benefit chiefly to dampening of inflammatory proteins.[15]

These preclinical findings are hypothesis-generating only. Rodent MSC efficacy is donor-age dependent in a way not replicated in humans, limiting direct extrapolation.[14]

3. Evidence base and grading

Study types available: A handful of small phase I/II RCTs in aging frailty (BM-MSC);[1][2] RCTs and a meta-analysis in knee osteoarthritis (adipose-derived);[16][3] systematic reviews of safety; a[4][17][18] Cochrane review in critical limb ischaemia informing procedural safety.[10] No phase III efficacy trials, no mortality/lifespan RCTs, and no RCT using validated ageing biomarkers (e.g. epigenetic clocks) as endpoints.[14]

GRADE-style certainty and strength of recommendation, by outcome:

Outcome	Evidence statement	Certainty (GRADE)	Key downgrades	Recommendation
Physical function in frailty (6MWT, SPPB)	Two small allogeneic BM-MSC RCTs (CRATUS n=30; phase 2b laromestrocel n=148) show dose/time-dependent 6MWT gains (e.g. +63.4 m at 9 mo, 95% CI 17.1–109.6) [1], [2]	Low–Moderate	Small samples, single sponsor/centre lineage, imprecision, surrogate functional endpoints	Only in research / conditional — offer within trials or registries, not routine care [1], [2]
Knee OA pain & function	Meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (n=585): adipose-derived therapy improves WOMAC/KOOS pain & function at 6 mo [16]	Moderate (for OA, not longevity)	Heterogeneous products, short follow-up, indirect to longevity	Conditional for OA symptom relief; not a longevity indication [16]
All-cause mortality / lifespan	No human RCT data [1], [14]	Very low / absent	No direct evidence	Recommend against claiming benefit [14]
Biological/epigenetic age reversal	Human clinical evidence absent; rodent-only [9], [12], [13], [14]	Very low	Indirectness (animal), no human clocks measured	Only in research [14]
Inflammatory biomarkers (TNF-α, T-cell activation)	1 RCT (n=30) shows reductions [2]	Low	Single small trial, surrogate	Surrogate only — do not infer hard outcomes [2]
Safety (short-term)	Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SafeCell n=1012; SVF review; adipose review >1400 pts) show good short-term tolerability; MSC infusion associated with transient fever [4], [17], [18]	Moderate	Poor/incomplete AE reporting, short follow-up	Reassuring short-term; long-term uncertain [4], [17], [18]

Publication bias is a genuine concern across the field (commercial interest, selective reporting, weak AE ascertainment).[17][4]

4. Patient selection and indications

Regulatory and ethical status (UK) — read first:

– In the UK/EU framework, culture-expanded MSCs (BM-MSC, AD-MSC) are Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) because ex-vivo expansion constitutes substantial manipulation; enzymatically isolated SVF is also generally classed as an ATMP.[19][20][21][22]

– No such product holds a UK marketing authorisation for any ageing/longevity or frailty indication. Lawful administration is therefore via an approved clinical trial (CTIMP/ATMP authorisation), the “Specials”/hospital-exemption route under strict conditions, or a licensed indication — not routine off-label prescribing.[23][21][24]

– Minimally manipulated products (BMAC; some mechanically processed adipose) used homologously may fall differently, but non-homologous/systemic use for anti-ageing is not an established or authorised indication.[5][19]

– Bottom line: For longevity purposes these therapies should be regarded as research-only or hospital-exemption/informed-consent adjuncts, never marketed as proven anti-ageing treatment.[24][25][26]

Populations most plausibly benefiting (evidence-informed, still experimental):

– Older adults with established physical frailty/hypomobility (the only group with supportive RCT signal) — trial populations were ~60–95 years with reduced 6MWT/SPPB.[1][2]

– Middle-aged/older adults with symptomatic knee OA seeking symptom relief (a defined musculoskeletal, not longevity, indication).[16][3]

Inclusion considerations: ambulatory, able to consent, realistic expectations, no active malignancy, willing to undergo structured follow-up.

Exclusion / high-risk groups:

– Active or recent malignancy, or high cancer risk — MSCs can support tumour stroma, angiogenesis and cancer-stem-cell enrichment in preclinical models; bone marrow- and adipose-derived MSCs more often promoted tumour growth than umbilical-cord MSCs in a systematic review of experimental design. Treat as a relative-to-absolute contraindication pending human safety clarity.[27][28][29][30]

– Pregnancy/breastfeeding — no data; avoid.

– Active infection, uncontrolled cardiopulmonary disease (IV route carries pulmonary entrapment/embolism concerns).[31][17]

– Athletic individuals seeking performance/”longevity optimisation” while healthy — no evidence of benefit; recommend against outside research.

5. Assessment and baseline work-up

History and examination: full ageing/frailty phenotype; comorbidities; complete cancer history and age-appropriate screening status; medications (immunosuppressants, anticoagulants); prior cell therapy/sensitisation (allogeneic products can provoke donor-specific antibodies in ~19–34% of patients).[17]

Validated scoring tools: Fried frailty phenotype and/or a deficit-accumulation Frailty Index; SPPB and 6-minute walk test as functional anchors (the endpoints used in trials).[1][2][32]

Baseline investigations:

– FBC, renal/hepatic profile, HbA1c/lipids, hsCRP, coagulation.

– Cardiometabolic risk stratification (e.g. QRISK where relevant).

– Documented up-to-date cancer screening appropriate to age/sex before any MSC exposure.[27]

– For musculoskeletal use: baseline joint imaging (X-ray ± MRI).[3]

– Ageing biomarkers (epigenetic clocks, inflammatory panels): may be recorded for research/registry purposes but must not be used to promise or infer clinical benefit — the biomarker-to-outcome link is unvalidated for these therapies.[14][9]

Risk stratification: low-risk = robust older adult with symptomatic indication and no cancer history in a trial; high-risk = malignancy history, immunocompromise, systemic/IV delivery, or expectation of anti-ageing “cure.”

Baseline documentation: functional scores, biomarkers, imaging, product source/dose/route, consent record, and an agreed follow-up schedule to enable meaningful outcome tracking.[25]

6. Dosing regimens and practical implementation

Regimens with the most robust (still early-phase) human data:

– Allogeneic BM-MSC (laromestrocel/Lomecel-B) for frailty: single intravenous infusion; dose-finding trials tested ~100–200 million cells, with the 100M dose giving the best functional signal in CRATUS and dose/time-dependent 6MWT gains in the phase 2b trial (benefit greatest at 9 months). Higher is not better — a clear caution against dose escalation. Remains investigational.[2][1]

– Adipose-derived cell therapy for knee OA: single intra-articular injection; products and doses are heterogeneous across the 8 pooled RCTs, precluding a single recommended dose.[16][3]

Regimens extrapolated from early-phase/preclinical data — use caution, research only:

– Repeated/serial IV infusions, “systemic rejuvenation” protocols, SVF for systemic anti-ageing, and any epigenetic-age-targeting regimen have no validated dosing and no robust human efficacy data.[4][14]

– Heterochronous autologous HSCT (banking young stem cells for later re-infusion) is a conceptual proposal with animal data only — no human longevity evidence.[33][34]

Practical/manufacturing requirements: ATMP-grade products require GMP manufacture, GTP-compliant tissue procurement, sterility/mycoplasma/endotoxin release testing, and genomic stability checks.[19][22][7][21] Point-of-care SVF isolation lacks standardised protocols, driving product variability.[20][4]

7. Monitoring, safety and follow-up

Safety profile overview: Across systematic reviews, short-term tolerability is good. The SafeCell meta-analysis (36 studies, 1012 patients) found no significant association with acute infusional toxicity, organ complications, infection, death or malignancy — the only consistent signal was transient fever.[18] Adipose/SVF reviews report predominantly mild, procedure-related events (pain, swelling, local inflammation at aspiration/injection site); serious complications (embolism, infection, fibrosis, tumour) not reported to date but follow-up is short.[17][4][7]

Serious but rare / theoretical events:

– IV infusion: pulmonary entrapment/microembolism; isolated reports of thromboembolism and myocardial/cerebral infarction with systemic or cardiac administration.[17][31]

– Allogeneic sensitisation: donor-specific antibodies in ~19–34% (clinical consequence unknown).[17]

– Oncogenesis: not observed clinically within current follow-up, but preclinical plausibility warrants long-term surveillance.[27][35][17]

– Bone marrow harvest: transient aspiration-site pain, bleeding, haematoma.[10]

Monitoring plan and timepoints:

– Peri-procedure: observe for infusion reactions/fever; harvest/injection-site checks.

– Short-term (1 month): treatment-emergent serious adverse events (the CRATUS primary safety endpoint).[2]

– Medium-term (3–9 months): functional endpoints (6MWT/SPPB), symptoms, inflammatory markers if tracked; peak functional benefit in frailty trials occurred around 6–9 months.[1]

– Long-term (annual, ideally via registry): cancer surveillance and durability of any effect — long-term safety data are lacking and are the field’s main gap.[17][4]

Actions for abnormal findings: stop/withhold for infusion reaction beyond transient fever, suspected embolism, or new malignancy; refer to appropriate specialist; report adverse events to the MHRA and any trial sponsor.[25]

Interactions and special populations: avoid in pregnancy/breastfeeding (no data); caution with immunosuppressants (may blunt immunomodulatory rationale and alter infection risk) and anticoagulants (harvest bleeding); no established renal/hepatic dose adjustments; in frailty/extremes of age favour the lower effective dose and single-infusion approach given the inverse dose–response signal.[2]

8. Contraindications and cautions

Absolute (in current practice):

– Active malignancy or recent cancer without oncology clearance.[27][29]

– Pregnancy and breastfeeding.

– Active systemic infection or sepsis.

– Inability to give informed consent for an experimental intervention.

Relative / specialist input required:

– History of malignancy in remission.[28][30]

– Significant cardiopulmonary disease (systemic/IV route).[17]

– Immunosuppression or prior allo-sensitisation.[17]

– Bleeding diathesis/anticoagulation (harvest procedures).[10]

Harm likely to outweigh benefit: using these therapies as routine anti-ageing treatment in healthy adults, marketed on unvalidated biomarker changes, or outside a governed research/consent framework — here evidence of benefit is absent and regulatory/ethical risk is high.[26][25][14]

9. Practical management scenarios

Scenario A — Middle-aged patient with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors requesting cell therapy for “longevity.”

– Recommendation: Avoid / research-only (strong). No evidence of cardiometabolic or mortality benefit; not an authorised indication.[14][1]

– Assessment: cardiometabolic risk profiling; cancer screening status.

– Shared decision-making: clearly state there is no proven longevity benefit; redirect to guideline-based risk-factor management and exercise (which has RCT support for function/frailty prevention).[32][36]

– If they still wish to proceed: only via an appropriately governed clinical trial with documented informed consent.

Scenario B — Older, frail patient with multimorbidity.

– Recommendation: Consider only within a trial/registry (conditional). This is the population with the strongest (yet low–moderate certainty) signal for functional improvement.[1][2]

– Assessment: Fried phenotype/Frailty Index, SPPB, 6MWT, cancer screening, cardiopulmonary fitness for IV infusion.

– Consent: experimental status, ATMP regulatory position, transient fever/embolism risk, long-term uncertainty.

– Initiation: single IV allogeneic BM-MSC at the lower (≈100M) dose within a trial framework; avoid dose escalation.[2][1]

– Monitoring: 1-month SAE review; 6- and 9-month functional reassessment; annual cancer surveillance.

– Escalate/stop: new malignancy, embolic event, or no functional benefit by 9 months → discontinue, return to comprehensive geriatric assessment and structured exercise.[32]

Scenario C — Patient with symptomatic knee OA already under orthopaedic/rheumatology care.

– Recommendation: May consider adipose-derived intra-articular therapy for symptom relief (conditional), coordinated with the treating specialist — a musculoskeletal, not longevity, indication.[16][3]

– Assessment: baseline WOMAC/KOOS, imaging; optimise conventional OA care first.

– Consent: moderate-certainty 6-month symptom benefit, heterogeneous products, uncertain durability/disease modification, rare severe events.[16]

– Initiation: single intra-articular injection.

– Monitoring: function/pain at ~2, 6, 12 months; imaging at 12 months if disease-modification is a question.[3]

– Escalate/refer: no response by 6 months, or joint deterioration → back to orthopaedic pathway.

10. Research gaps and future directions

– No RCT-grade evidence for the core longevity claims — lifespan, biological/epigenetic age, or all-cause mortality; rodent findings do not translate directly.[14][9][13]

– Small, single-lineage frailty trials need independent, multicentre phase III replication with function and patient-important outcomes.[1][2][32]

– Long-term safety, especially oncological, remains undefined; harmonised long-term registries and standardised adverse-event reporting are priorities.[17][4][35]

– Product standardisation — dosing, source (BM vs adipose vs cord), SVF isolation, and potency assays — is immature and drives heterogeneity.[20][3][6]

– Biomarker validation: whether ageing-clock or inflammatory changes predict hard clinical outcomes is unproven; biomarker endpoints should be exploratory only.[14][2]

– Priority questions: optimal cell source and dose (noting the inverse dose–response in frailty), route (IV vs local) and its embolic risk, durability and re-dosing intervals, and defined responder phenotypes (e.g. soluble TIE2 as a candidate biomarker).[1][2]

Practice should be confined to well-designed clinical trials, registries, or governed hospital-exemption use with rigorous informed consent — not routine longevity care.[24][25][26]

References

1. Randomized Phase 2b Dose-Escalation Trial of Stem Cell Therapy With Laromestrocel for Aging Frailty. Ruiz JG, Oliva AA, Ramdas KN, et al. Cell Stem Cell. 2026;33(3):393-404.e4. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2026.01.017.
2. Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Ameliorate Aging Frailty: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Tompkins BA, DiFede DL, Khan A, et al. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2017;72(11):1513-1522. doi:10.1093/gerona/glx137.
3. Adipose Tissue-Derived Versus Bone Marrow-Derived Cell Concentrates for the Injective Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Protocol of a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial. Andriolo L, Veronesi F, Zanasi L, et al. BMJ Open. 2025;15(4):e092379. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092379.
4. Safety Profile of Autologous Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction in Clinical Use: An Exhaustive Literature Review. Nonnarath C, Serratrice N. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2026;:10.1186/s13287-026-04909-6. doi:10.1186/s13287-026-04909-6.
5. Stromal Vascular Fraction Technologies and Clinical Applications. Andia I, Maffulli N, Burgos-Alonso N. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy. 2019;19(12):1289-1305. doi:10.1080/14712598.2019.1671970.
6. Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Clinical Trials: Insights From Single-Cell Studies. Kostecka A, Kalamon N, Skoniecka A, et al. Life Sciences. 2024;351:122761. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2024.122761.
7. Human Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Cell Therapy: Safety and Feasibility in Different “Hospital Exemption” Clinical Applications. Vériter S, André W, Aouassar N, et al. PloS One. 2015;10(10):e0139566. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139566.
8. Advances in Mesenchymal Stem Cell and Exosome-Based Therapies for Aging and Age-Related Diseases. Li H, Bai L. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. 2025;16(1):401. doi:10.1186/s13287-025-04318-1.
9. Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Exosomes: A Novel Therapeutic Approach for Aging. Lan D, Zhang D, Dai X, et al. Experimental Gerontology. 2025;206:112781. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2025.112781.
10. Autologous Cells Derived From Different Sources and Administered Using Different Regimens for ‘No-Option’ Critical Lower Limb Ischaemia Patients. Abdul Wahid SF, Ismail NA, Wan Jamaludin WF, et al. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;8:CD010747. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010747.pub2.
11. Application of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Aging Frailty: From Mechanisms to Therapeutics. Zhu Y, Ge J, Huang C, Liu H, Jiang H. Theranostics. 2021;11(12):5675-5685. doi:10.7150/thno.46436.
12. Adipose-Derived Stem Cells Regulate Metabolic Homeostasis and Delay Aging by Promoting Mitophagy. Lv M, Zhang S, Jiang B, et al. FASEB Journal : Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. 2021;35(7):e21709. doi:10.1096/fj.202100332R.
13. Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Reduce Senescence and Extend Health Span in Mouse Models of Aging. Dorronsoro A, Santiago FE, Grassi D, et al. Aging Cell. 2021;20(4):e13337. doi:10.1111/acel.13337.
14. Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Derivatives as Potential Longevity-Promoting Tools. Rudnitsky E, Braiman A, Wolfson M, et al. Biogerontology. 2025;26(3):96. doi:10.1007/s10522-025-10240-z.
15. Anti-Inflammatory Therapeutic Biomarkers Identified of Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy on Aging Mice by Serum Proteomics and Peptidomics Study. Niu H, Wang BY, Wei XY, et al. Journal of Proteomics. 2023;288:104979. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2023.104979.
16. Adipose-Derived Cell Therapies Versus Nonactive Controls for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Madrazo-Ibarra A, de la Huerta-Meza D, Gutierrez Naranjo JM, Vad VB. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2026;105(6):504-511. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000002908.
17. Concise Review: A Safety Assessment of Adipose-Derived Cell Therapy in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Reported Adverse Events. Toyserkani NM, Jørgensen MG, Tabatabaeifar S, et al. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2017;6(9):1786-1794. doi:10.1002/sctm.17-0031.
18. Safety of Cell Therapy With Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (SafeCell): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Lalu MM, McIntyre L, Pugliese C, et al. PloS One. 2012;7(10):e47559. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047559.
19. Perspectives for Clinical Translation of Adipose Stromal/Stem Cells. Patrikoski M, Mannerström B, Miettinen S. Stem Cells International. 2019;2019:5858247. doi:10.1155/2019/5858247.
20. State of the Art in the Standardization of Stromal Vascular Fraction Processing. Cremona M, Gallazzi M, Rusconi G, et al. Biomolecules. 2025;15(2):199. doi:10.3390/biom15020199.
21. Translating Research into Clinical Scale Manufacturing of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Bieback K, Kinzebach S, Karagianni M. Stem Cells International. 2011;2010:193519. doi:10.4061/2010/193519.
22. GMP Compliant Production of a Cryopreserved Adipose‐Derived Stromal Cell Product for Feasible and Allogeneic Clinical Use. Haack-Sørensen M, Johansen EM, Højgaard LD, Kastrup J, Ekblond A. Stem Cells International. 2022;2022:4664917. doi:10.1155/2022/4664917.
23. An Overview of International Regulatory Frameworks for Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Based Medicinal Products: From Laboratory to Patient. López-Beas J, Guadix JA, Clares B, et al. Medicinal Research Reviews. 2020;40(4):1315-1334. doi:10.1002/med.21659.
24. Patient Access to and Ethical Considerations of the Application of the European Union Hospital Exemption Rule for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products. Cuende N, Ciccocioppo R, Forte M, et al. Cytotherapy. 2022;24(7):686-690. doi:10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.03.007.
25. Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: A Roadmap about Good Clinical Practice and Patient Care. Frati P, Scopetti M, Santurro A, Gatto V, Fineschi V. Stem Cells International. 2017;2017:5080259. doi:10.1155/2017/5080259.
26. Ethical and Practical Considerations for Integrating Cellular (“Stem Cell”) Therapy Into Clinical Practice. Piuzzi NS, Emara A, Chahla J, Mandelbaum BR. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2020;13(4):525-529. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09647-7.
27. Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells in Tumour Initiation, Progression and Therapy. Garcia GL, Baruwal R, Suresh S, et al. Nature Reviews. Cancer. 2026;26(8):604-619. doi:10.1038/s41568-026-00936-w.
28. Contrasting Views on the Role of Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells in Tumour Growth: A Systematic Review of Experimental Design. Oloyo AK, Ambele MA, Pepper MS. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2018;1083:103-124. doi:10.1007/5584_2017_118.
29. Double-Edged Sword of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Cancer-Promoting Versus Therapeutic Potential. Lee HY, Hong IS. Cancer Science. 2017;108(10):1939-1946. doi:10.1111/cas.13334.
30. Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells in Cancer: From Initiation to Metastasis. Zheng Z, Li P, Shen F, Shi Y, Shao C. Archives of Medical Research. 2022;53(8):785-793. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2022.11.001.
31. 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.
32. Frailty in Older Adults. Kim DH, Rockwood K. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2024;391(6):538-548. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2301292.
33. How Could We Slow or Reverse the Human Aging Process and Extend the Healthy Life Span With Heterochronous Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Rožman P. Rejuvenation Research. 2020;23(2):159-170. doi:10.1089/rej.2018.2164.
34. The Potential of Non-Myeloablative Heterochronous Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Extending a Healthy Life Span. Rožman P. GeroScience. 2018;40(3):221-242. doi:10.1007/s11357-018-0027-x.
35. Intramedullary Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Transplantation in Humans: Procedural Safety and Oncological Risk Reassessment. Nonnarath C, Serratrice N. Cell Transplantation. 2026 Jan-Dec;35:9636897261466805. doi:10.1177/09636897261466805.
36. Systematic Review of Interventions for Pre-Frail and Frail Older Adults: Evidence From Clinical Trials on Frailty Levels. Sobrinho ACDS, de Paula Venancio RC, da Silva Rodrigues G, et al. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2025;134:105851. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2025.105851.