Rapamycin: evidence map - 5 findings across 5 sources

Selected angle: source

One-sentence thesis

Scoping review of Rapamycin: 5 findings across 5 independent sources, aligned below by population, comparator, endpoint, and effect size. Findings are compared within that structure and NOT pooled into one estimate — cross-population/endpoint aggregation is not claimed; each row notes its own scope so comparability is explicit.

Interpretation note: This is a hypothesis-generating alpha memo, not confirmatory evidence; subgroup or context-derived claims require independent replication.

Why this is surprising

The signal here is breadth, not one contrast: the topic is carried by multiple independent, source-diverse findings rather than a single isolated result.

Evidence Landscape

Bounded research question: Across 5 independent sources on Rapamycin, how do the reported effects vary by population, comparator, and endpoint?

Evidence receipts

#	Source	Population	Comparator	Endpoint	Effect
1	fact_id=rapamycin/itp/miller_2014/dose_response_high_female 10.1111/acel.12194	female heterogeneous-stock...	control feed	lifespan	26.0% (abs.)
2	fact_id=rapamycin/itp/harrison_2009/lifespan_female 10.1038/nature08221	female heterogeneous-stock...	control feed	lifespan	14.0% (rel. ↓)
3	fact_id=166319 10.1111/acel.12496	genetically heterogeneous...	rapamycin alone...	effect_size	0.1% (abs.)
4	fact_id=rapamycin/transient/bitto_2016/lifespan_male 10.7554/eLife.16351	male middle-aged C57BL/6...	vehicle control	effect_size	52.0% (abs.)
5	fact_id=318859 10.7759/cureus.98514	Genetically diverse UMHET3...	—	effect_size	10.0% (abs.)

What this changes

Treat this as a focused working signal, not a broad topic claim. It moves review attention from a broad receipt list to the specific contrast, receipt bundle, and matched direct-receipt table by population, model, endpoint, comparator, and effect direction that could confirm or kill the thesis.

Limitations

• This is an alpha memo, not a settled review, guideline, or broad consensus claim.
• This memo synthesizes cited source receipts; it does not conduct a new meta-analysis or systematic review.
• Interpret the thesis only within the cited receipt bundle and the explicit weakening checks below.
• Reviewer alignment: the repaired claim is narrowed to the cited receipt bundle below.
• An independent, matched-protocol replication fails to reproduce the reported direction or magnitude.
• The contrast reverses or loses significance once the dominant confounder, comparator, or subgroup is controlled.

What would weaken this

• An independent, matched-protocol replication fails to reproduce the reported direction or magnitude.
• The contrast reverses or loses significance once the dominant confounder, comparator, or subgroup is controlled.

Strongest counter-evidence

• No direct opposing receipt was selected by this run. Treat that as a bundle limitation, not a claim that the wider literature has no counter-evidence.