If you have ideas for figures and/or tables that would help.
Once panels are finalized, you can do biological clocks if you want. Otherwise, that’s on my list to eventually do.
1 Like
Hey! It looks like the review has already been one year in the making. I’ve just gotten around to writing my part on physiologic markers. With the advent of the Biomarkers Consortium, the work has aged a little, but still, I believe we need to put it out there one way or another.
2 Likes
I have this idea for a figure. I will put the info from our airtable into the panels according to the biomarker type.
3 Likes
Need to get my last part done, too. This past semester was crazy for me.
A year isn’t too bad for writing a review. Submitted a few papers this year and last which included data from 10 years ago and 15 years ago.
2 Likes
Awesome work everyone! One question, did this ever go onchain, or from which budget is the bounty coming from?
Not onchain yet because it’s not yet finished.
1 Like
Hey! So, to better understand what I’m writing about, today I measured my VO2max and body composition in a lab setting. That’s it! Now I have everything I need. I will have the draft by the end of the week.
2 Likes
Hey! Updated the document with the section on physiological markers.
2 Likes
The paper is coming together, it looks. I’m adding the part on aging clocks soon. Meanwhile, let’s start polishing other sections. I have a Zotero integration with Google Docs. Please leave your citations in the text so I can add them later on my side once we’re done.
Should we include our table from Airtable too?
2 Likes
We should include the Table. I will double check my citations after Oct 16, because I have a grant deadline then.
2 Likes
Hi! Updated the document with the section on aging clocks. I will start assembling the text in the coming days. There will be 2 figures overall (working on that too). If you have time, please make your edits.
1 Like
Looking through it now. Hopefully will get edits up in the next week.
1 Like
Did some work on the manuscript. We have a beginning, the middle part, and the end now. The paper is getting done big time. Figures are coming shortly.
1 Like
Added Fig. 1, 2. Need to complete Fig. 2, but the idea is clear.
1 Like
Updated the neurologic section. Also rearranged almost everything in the manuscript in the hopes of making it flow better. For example, I think neurologic goes better after physiologic, and the aging clocks can be merged with the genetic/epigenetic discussion. Having the panel discussion near the end makes more sense to me, and splitting out the long machine-learning part will improve readability.
I will work on cleaning up the lab section that I made messy by sticking random parts together, and resurrecting one of those laundry lists of possible biomarkers. Then I plan to move on to the genetics/epigenetics part, because that section also needs serious revision.
2 Likes
Awesome work - will take a look and see if i can add any additional details that are still missing.
1 Like
When is this going live? Might be worth setting a deadline to publish it on https://www.researchhub.com/, https://longevity.review/ and https://desci.com/
Hi! I currently am busy with my other urgent writing tasks. I reached out to Evgeni and Gustav – both will be able to follow up on the draft towards the end of December. The end of January for the deadline looks realistic to me. We could at least finish the first edition of the review and make it public.
New papers are coming out every week. I’m trying to stay on top of things – some new developments (like customizable GPT) are pretty exciting.
1 Like
End of the semester is nuts right now. Hoping I’ll have my revisions done by Christmas after the dust settles. End of Jan may be possible for a reasonable draft.
1 Like
We’re thrilled to inform you that the work on our commentary regarding the current longevity biomarker landscape has been finalized. The preprint is now available for perusal on ResearchHub:
A big shoutout to the authors: @bowtiedshrike, who conceived the manuscript and led the writing efforts; @gustav_nilsonne and @vincent, for their immense input that helped to shape the manuscript into its final form.
We warmly invite everyone to comment on and review the manuscript on the ResearchHub platform. Quality peer reviews will be compensated with $150 worth of $RSC tokens.
5 Likes