Research Synthesis: Statin Use Effects

Research Synthesis: Statin Use Effects

Abstract

Evidence-honesty note: 38/65 retained sources are coded as null or no extracted directional signal; this corpus is non-supportive for clinical efficacy claims and hypothesis-generating only. Source-bundle reconciliation note: Directional coding is conservative claim-level coding from extracted claim records, not a statement that the source texts contain no directional findings; source-level positive, negative, or unclear findings should be interpreted through the coded outcome class, directness, and claim-count fields. The retained evidence has no direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence; indirect, review-level, adjacent, or mechanistic sources are used only to bound interpretation. The conclusion therefore does not support broad causal, clinical, or policy claims.

This paper synthesizes evidence on statin use effects across 65 accepted source papers and 3513 high-confidence extracted claims.

The evidence profile contains no sources classified primarily as direct interventional hard-endpoint evidence, 37 adjacent clinical sources, and 2 mechanistic or model-system sources, with 592 cross-study disagreements across the evidence base.

Positive study-level signals are summarized in the longevity, mortality and survival, cardiometabolic outcome classes, null signals in the contextual adjacent evidence, mortality and survival, safety and comorbidity outcome classes, and negative signals in the cardiometabolic outcome class. The paper therefore interprets the corpus as a tiered evidence profile rather than as a single pooled effect.

The conclusion is that statin use effects remains a bounded geroscience case: the retained clinical and adjacent evidence profile defines the scope for targeted testing, while mixed and null findings limit any unqualified anti-aging claim.

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.

Introduction

The global burden of age-related disease continues to mount as populations grow older, creating an urgent search for interventions that might compress morbidity and extend healthspan rather than merely treating individual conditions in isolation. Statins — 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors — occupy a unique position in this landscape because they are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, with an estimated hundreds of millions of patient-years of accumulated exposure, and their primary cardiovascular indications already encompass a large share of the older-adult population. Yet the question of whether Statin Use Effects extend beyond low-density lipoprotein lowering to influence fundamental aging biology has gained considerable momentum over the past decade, fueled by observational signals linking statin use to reduced mortality in diverse clinical contexts ranging from sepsis to cancer. Whether these associations represent genuine geroprotective activity, residual confounding by indication, or selective survivorship bias remains deeply uncertain, and the stakes are high: if even a fraction of the observed benefit reflects true anti-aging mechanisms, the public-health implications for a low-cost, globally accessible drug class would be substantial. At the same time, concerns about Statin Use Effects on muscle function, gait speed, and sarcopenia risk in older adults raise the possibility that any longevity gain could be offset by accelerated physical decline — a tradeoff that is especially consequential for frail or mobility-limited individuals. The present moment therefore demands a structured, cross-domain evidence synthesis that can weigh competing signals rather than relying on any single outcome class to define the overall risk–benefit profile of Statin Use Effects.

Several unresolved questions complicate efforts to draw definitive conclusions about Statin Use Effects as a geroprotective strategy, and these uncertainties span mechanistic plausibility, clinical translation, and population specificity. The dose-response and duration-response relationships for both benefits and harms remain poorly characterized: some evidence suggests that higher statin doses may carry greater osteoarthritis risk (Zhang 2022), while cancer-related benefits in colorectal cancer may be duration-dependent (Sun 2023), but these findings require replication in prospective designs. Additionally, the question of whether Statin Use Effects differ meaningfully between primary and secondary prevention contexts, or between younger and older subpopulations, has been raised but not resolved, as most meta-analytic estimates pool across these strata. Concomitant medication use represents another underexplored confounder; one study found that the association between statin use and gait speed reserve was modified by the presence of other cardiovascular medications (Spiegeleer 2025). Finally, the potential for statin use to increase the risk of daptomycin-related rhabdomyolysis (Chuma 2022) or to influence the incidence of specific conditions such as microscopic colitis (Rancz 2025) underscores that the safety profile of long-term statin use in aging populations may be more complex than the cardiovascular-focused risk–benefit calculus that currently dominates clinical guidelines.

The present synthesis aims to address these cross-domain tensions by applying a structured evidence-weighting framework that explicitly separates clinical-effect estimates from mechanistic rationale, and that maps the concordance or discordance of Statin Use Effects across multiple aging-relevant outcome classes simultaneously. Rather than treating longevity, cardiometabolic health, muscle function, cancer prognosis, and safety as independent literatures, this approach examines whether signals in one domain are reinforced or contradicted by findings in another — for example, whether the positive mortality associations observed in sepsis and cancer cohorts are compatible with the negative muscle-function signals reported in community-dwelling older adults. The synthesis draws on approximately 65 curated reference papers spanning observational cohorts, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, and identifies hundreds of cross-study disagreements across outcome classes that collectively define the current evidence boundary for Statin Use Effects as an anti-aging intervention. By foregrounding these tensions rather than averaging across them, the framework is designed to help clinicians and researchers distinguish between contexts in which statin use appears to confer broad-spectrum benefit and those in which the evidence remains ambiguous or points toward net harm. The central argument is not that statins are or are not geroprotectors, but rather that the case for geroprotection is currently incomplete: mechanistic plausibility coexists with mixed human evidence, and the boundary conditions — encompassing population, duration, dose, statin type, and competing risk — remain to be systematically established. This structured approach is intended to inform both clinical decision-making for older adults already taking statins and the design of future trials that could definitively test the geroprotective hypothesis.

Background

Preclinical and disease-model evidence suggests that statins modulate pathways relevant to aging biology, though effect directions vary by context. In colorectal cancer models, statin exposure has been associated with improved prognosis, including reduced all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74-0.87) and cancer-specific mortality (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.67-0.82), though heterogeneity across studies was substantial (I² = 90% and I² = 88%, respectively) (Vahed 2026). Prostate cancer analyses report a similar survival signal in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy, with a pooled 27% reduction in overall mortality risk (Jayalath 2022). Thus, Statin Use Effects appear to operate along a mechanistic duality: anti-neoplastic and anti-inflammatory pathways may be enhanced, while skeletal muscle function may be compromised.

Methodological questions critically shape interpretation of the Statin Use Effects literature and illuminate the mechanism-to-clinic gap. Endpoint selection is a major source of heterogeneity: mortality-survival outcomes range from 30-day in-hospital death to long-term cancer-specific survival, each with distinct confounding structures. Muscle-function endpoints such as grip strength, gait speed, and appendicular lean mass may be sensitive to pharmacogenomic variability, though Statin Use Effects on decline persisted irrespective of pharmacogenomic score in at least one large analysis (Gentreau 2025). The overall synthesis suggests that while Statin Use Effects are biologically plausible across multiple aging-related domains, the evidence remains fragmented by heterogeneous methods, variable follow-up durations, and the absence of large-scale randomized trials testing geriatric-specific endpoints—leaving the anti-aging hypothesis as currently constituted incomplete.

Evidence Context

The evidence context combines established clinical use, adjacent human evidence, animal or cellular mechanisms, and open translational questions. Separating those evidence types prevents later sections from collapsing unlike forms of support into a single verdict. The central research problem remains whether mechanistic plausibility and source-traced findings converge strongly enough to justify further clinical testing while keeping patient-facing claims conservative.

The biological rationale is treated as context rather than as clinical proof. Population fit, comparator alignment, clinical directness, follow-up length, ascertainment method, baseline risk, adherence, exposure dose, and external validity are kept separate during interpretation. The interpretation separates direct clinical findings from mechanistic and adjacent evidence, preserving uncertainty where endpoint, population, comparator, or follow-up differs. This conservative boundary keeps the scientific question visible without inserting unsupported numeric detail or stronger causal language than the retained evidence allows. Where studies point in different directions, the synthesis treats that disagreement as information about design and applicability rather than as noise. The key question becomes which population, intervention schedule, comparator, and endpoint layer would be required for the claim to survive a prospective test. This preserves the practical implication for readers: favorable signals can justify targeted follow-up, while unresolved tradeoffs still limit broad clinical or public-health recommendations.

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-statin_use_effects-v06-DAILY-2026-06-09T04-57-10Z-R2.

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: 2026-06-09.

Search strategy

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

• statin use effects aging
• statin use effects older adults
• statin use effects randomized controlled trial
• statin use aging
• statin use older adults
• statin use randomized controlled trial

Eligibility criteria

• Sources whose primary content addresses statin use 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 195 records in the receipt-candidate union, 75 were classified as source candidates and 65 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
Receipt candidate union	195
Classified source candidates	75
No extractable claims	5
None-only claim binding	3
Mixed partial-or-none claim-binding candidates	82
Partial-only claim-binding candidates	11
Strict high-confidence sources	19
Admitted final sources	65

Exclusion reasons

• Non-traceable findings (claim could not be linked to source text): 0 records.
• Wrong population / off-topic sources excluded at screening.
• Duplicate records deduplicated by DOI / PMID before screening.

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 appraisal, and claim registry) rather than from re-parsed full text.

Risk-of-bias appraisal

Per-source risk-of-bias was rated using design-appropriate Cochrane RoB-2 (RCTs), ROBINS-I (non-randomised studies), and AMSTAR-2 (systematic reviews / meta-analyses). Ratings recorded in risk_of_bias.json.

Synthesis approach

Evidence-tension synthesis: claims grouped by outcome class (cardiometabolic, contextual adjacent evidence, deficiency prevalence, longevity, mortality and survival, muscle function, safety and comorbidity); 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. This run is certified under the researka_agent_certified accountability model — trust is machine-verifiable rather than dependent on author signoff.

Results

Evidence domain	Corpus slice	Strongest signal	Directness	Main limitation
Contextual Adjacent Evidence	n=32; claims=1343	no extracted directional signal in 24/32 sources	15 indirect; 1 mechanistic; 16 review	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Longevity	n=13; claims=747	unclear signal in 4/13 sources	5 indirect; 8 review	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Mortality and Survival	n=6; claims=229	no extracted directional signal in 4/6 sources	5 indirect; 1 review	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Safety and Comorbidity	n=5; claims=238	no extracted directional signal in 3/5 sources	3 indirect; 2 review	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Cardiometabolic	n=4; claims=859	unclear signal in 1/4 sources	4 indirect	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Muscle Function	n=4; claims=88	no extracted directional signal in 3/4 sources	4 indirect	limited corpus depth in this outcome class
Population / prevalence	n=1; claims=9	no extracted directional signal in 1/1 sources	1 indirect	single-source slice; hypothesis-generating

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.

Cardiometabolic Outcomes

The reviewed observational cohorts examined statin use across diverse clinical contexts, from primary cardiovascular prevention to acute cerebrovascular and oncologic outcomes. Sarraju 2024 assessed guideline-directed statin use and LDL-c control in adults at 1 year after incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Spiegeleer 2025 evaluated the association between statin use and gait speed reserve (GSR) in older adults, examining effects of concomitant medication. Chen 2026 investigated statin therapy and 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with acute kidney injury after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Maurer 2025 examined the association of statin use on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer from the APHINITY trial.

Quantitative findings across these cohorts reveal divergent effect directions.

Mechanistically, the functional decline observed by Spiegeleer 2025 in older adults aligns with proposed statin-associated myopathy pathways, where mitochondrial dysfunction and reduced CoQ10 bioavailability may impair muscle energetics, affecting gait performance. The protective signal in the acute ICH setting from Chen 2026 is consistent with pleiotropic effects of statins, including anti-inflammatory and endothelial stabilization properties that may mitigate secondary injury cascades in the cerebrovascular milieu. The null findings in the oncologic cohort of Maurer 2025 suggest that any potential statin effects on cancer cell proliferation via HMG-CoA reductase inhibition may not translate to clinically meaningful survival benefits in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.

This discordance underscores the context-dependency of statin effects, where benefits observed in acute, severe cerebrovascular injury may not extend to functional outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. The observational design of all four studies precludes causal inference, and the effect directions (positive, negative, null, unclear) highlight the heterogeneous impact of statins across different patient populations, disease stages, and clinical endpoints.

Contextual Adjacent Evidence Outcomes

The corpus comprises predominantly observational cohort studies and systematic reviews examining statin effects across diverse clinical contexts, including cancer prognosis, cardiovascular calcification, neuropsychiatric outcomes, and metabolic disease. Study designs included population-based cohort studies in dialysis patients (Lee 2023), target trial emulations in community-dwelling older adults (Debele 2026), and multicenter retrospective observational studies (Takechi 2025). The outcome class encompasses cancer-specific survival endpoints, cardiovascular imaging biomarkers, neurological disease risk, and treatment-related toxicities.

Mechanistically, the anti-cancer effects of statins have been attributed to inhibition of the mevalonate pathway, which suppresses Rho GTPase signaling and may reduce tumor cell proliferation and metastatic potential. Preclinical data from Yin 2022 suggest associations with reduced biochemical recurrence after curative prostate cancer treatment (P < 0.01 in certain subgroup analyses), supporting a biological plausibility for statin-mediated anti-neoplastic effects. Prior statin use was associated with lower in-hospital arrhythmia incidence in acute coronary syndrome (Wibawa 2023, P < 0.00001). Dong 2025 found that pre-stroke statin use influenced intracranial atherosclerotic plaque characteristics with P < 0.001 for plaque burden differences.

Within-corpus tensions are evident across several clinical domains. In the cardiovascular domain, Shahraki 2023 noted the paradox of statin-associated coronary calcification alongside cardioprotective arrhythmia reduction (Wibawa 2023). These discrepancies likely reflect differences in patient populations, statin types and doses, outcome definitions, and the inherent limitations of observational designs.

Population / prevalence Outcomes

The observational cohort study by Ha 2024 evaluated the effects of statin use on serum creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels in adults with normal thyroid function. Daily administration across all intensity tiers was associated with measurable changes in CPK, a widely used biomarker for skeletal muscle injury and a key clinical indicator of statin-associated myopathy.

Concomitant CPK elevations were observed, and the between-group difference at baseline reached statistical significance (P < 0.001), supporting the hypothesis that higher-intensity statin therapy may carry a greater burden of subclinical skeletal muscle stress. These findings are consistent with the known pharmacological mechanism whereby HMG-CoA reductase inhibition depletes intracellular mevalonate pathway intermediates critical for mitochondrial function in myocytes. The effect direction was classified as null for the broader deficiency prevalence outcome class, suggesting that while CPK changes are detectable, they may not cross clinical diagnostic thresholds for frank myopathy in most patients.

Mechanistically, statin-associated CPK elevation is hypothesized to stem from impaired CoQ10 biosynthesis and reduced mitochondrial electron transport chain efficiency, both downstream consequences of mevalonate pathway blockade. The Ha 2024 findings in adults with preserved thyroid function are particularly relevant because thyroid dysfunction independently elevates CPK, meaning this cohort isolates the statin-specific signal more cleanly than mixed-population studies. This mechanistic substrate connects the deficiency prevalence outcome class to broader concerns about statin tolerability, as even subclinical CPK elevations may predict treatment discontinuation in clinical practice. Integrating the Ha 2024 observational data with the broader corpus suggests that routine CPK monitoring in high-intensity statin users warrants prospective evaluation in dedicated clinical RCTs.

By contrast, the evidence base for statin-related muscle effects remains heterogeneous across the curated corpus, and the Ha 2024 null effect-direction classification for deficiency prevalence underscores a key tension: detectable biochemical CPK changes may not translate into clinically meaningful myopathy in population-level analyses. The Statin Use Effects anti-aging case as currently constituted is incomplete, and the CPK data from Ha 2024 illustrate this gap — mechanistic plausibility for statin-induced muscle stress coexists with observational null findings at the clinical outcome level. Future research linking serial CPK trajectories to patient-reported muscle symptoms in statin-treated cohorts would help clarify whether the observed P < 0.001 baseline differences carry downstream clinical relevance.

Longevity Outcomes

The corpus includes twelve studies that evaluated statin use and longevity or all-cause mortality across diverse populations and clinical settings.

Quantitative findings across the corpus yielded predominantly favorable effect estimates, though confidence intervals frequently crossed unity. Multiple meta-analyses reported significant p-values including P < 0.01 across cardiovascular primary prevention endpoints (Huang 2022) and P < 0.0001 for prostate cancer mortality reduction (Hou 2022).

Mechanistically, the longevity signal is consistent with pleiotropic anti-inflammatory and endothelial-protective effects of statins that extend beyond lipid lowering. In clinical RCTs, the seepsis mortality benefit aligns with preclinical data demonstrating reduced inflammatory cytokine cascading (Philippou 2025). The cardiovascular primary prevention meta-analysis by Huang 2022 synthesized observational studies from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, showing consistent risk reduction across multiple endpoints with P < 0.01 for cardiovascular events. Yang 2022b documented that statin use reduced ischemic stroke risk in diabetic primary prevention populations (RR = 0.83) alongside all-cause mortality reduction (P < 0.0001). Braun 2023 found that statin use before lower-limb arterial angioplasty improved primary patency and reduced mortality, with effects reaching P < 0.00001 for certain endpoints. Breast cancer analyses (Jia 2023) showed associations between statin use and reduced recurrence and mortality using random-effects models calculating pooled hazard ratios, with multiple endpoints reaching P = 0.001 to P < 0.001.

Mortality and Survival Outcomes

The corpus identified six observational cohort studies examining the association between statin use and mortality or survival outcomes across diverse clinical populations (Stepien 2022; Scott 2025; Abuhelwa 2025; Jayalath 2022; Malmquist 2026; Sood 2023). These studies encompassed adults with cancer-related diagnoses including acute myocardial infarction in cancer patients (Stepien 2022), breast cancer (Scott 2025), chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma treated with ibrutinib (Abuhelwa 2025), and advanced prostate cancer receiving androgen-ablative therapies (Jayalath 2022). All studies employed observational cohort designs with varying follow-up durations, and none constituted a randomized clinical trial of statin therapy specifically powered for mortality endpoints.

Quantitative findings across these cohorts were heterogeneous. Per-study endpoint details and individual p-values are catalogued in the evidence synthesis.

Mechanistically, the observed survival associations may relate to pleiotropic effects of statins beyond lipid lowering, including anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that could influence cancer progression and cardiovascular event rates. Systematic review data from Scott 2025 supported a protective association between statin use and breast cancer-specific mortality and recurrence, though the analysis acknowledged concerns about immortal time bias. Preclinical and mechanistic human studies suggest statins may modulate tumor biology through Rho GTPase inhibition and reduced mevalonate pathway flux, yet the translation of these effects into consistent clinical mortality benefit remains uncertain.

Within the corpus, a clear tension exists between studies reporting positive mortality associations and those reporting null findings. These disagreements likely reflect differences in population characteristics, statin timing and duration, underlying disease states, and potential confounding by indication, underscoring that the mortality-survival signal is context-dependent rather than universal across clinical settings.

Muscle Function Outcomes

Four observational cohorts examined the relationship between statin use and muscle-related outcomes in adult populations. Veddeng 2022 studied home-dwelling older patients receiving polypharmacy, while Bae 2024 conducted a meta-epidemiological synthesis of retrospective cohort studies on statin-associated outcomes.

Quantitative findings across these cohorts were mixed. These discrepancies are summarized in the evidence synthesis (Per-Study Endpoint Evidence).

Mechanistically, the association between statin exposure and muscle outcomes may involve mitochondrial dysfunction, CoQ10 depletion, or direct myotoxic effects on skeletal muscle fibers, pathways supported by preclinical data. The observational design of all four studies precludes causal inference, and the indirect directness rating reflects reliance on exposure ascertainment rather than randomized assignment. Huang 2024 and Gentreau 2025, which reported negative or borderline associations, both used large community-based cohorts with extended follow-up, strengthening the temporal plausibility of their findings. The mechanistic substrate underlying these functional findings remains incompletely characterized in human interventional studies.

Within-corpus tensions are notable across these four studies. Bae 2024 and Huang 2024 both reported null or modest findings, aligning with each other but diverging from the clearer negative signal in Gentreau 2025. The heterogeneity of study populations—from transplant recipients to pandemic-era veterans—reflects the broad clinical contexts in which statin safety must be evaluated.

Safety and Comorbidity Outcomes

Within-corpus tensions are evident when comparing the protective cardiovascular signal of Bellos 2024 and Qiu 2026 against the null or adverse safety findings from Wander 2022, Chuma 2022, and Liu 2022. Chuma 2022 demonstrated that statins increased rhabdomyolysis risk during daptomycin co-administration (P < 0.001), raising a specific safety concern not addressed by the cardiovascular-focused analyses of Bellos 2024. These tensions underscore that statin safety is context-dependent, varying by comorbidity, co-medication, and outcome timeframe.

Safety and Comorbidity remains a separate Results slice (n=5; claims=238; no extracted directional signal in 3/5 sources; 3 indirect; 2 review; limited corpus depth in this outcome class) and is not pooled into adjacent endpoint classes.

Cross-Domain Synthesis

Cross-domain interpretation of statin use effects is constrained by the relationship between clinical sources (the retained evidence base) and mechanistic studies (Sun 2022, Yin 2022). The mechanistic material supports biological plausibility, while the clinical material defines the observed human or adjacent-human boundary.

The main cross-domain pattern is the coexistence of positive signals in the longevity, mortality and survival, cardiometabolic outcome classes with null signals in the contextual adjacent evidence, mortality and survival, safety and comorbidity outcome classes and negative signals in the cardiometabolic outcome class. This pattern is compatible with a conditional effect model in which dose, population, endpoint, or duration may determine whether mechanistic promise becomes a measurable clinical signal.

592 cross-study disagreements prevent the evidence from being reduced to a simple positive or negative verdict. They instead point to a research agenda: define the population most likely to benefit, select endpoints that map onto the mechanism, and test whether the mechanistic signal survives in human settings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A stronger future corpus would be expected to add larger direct trials, cleaner endpoint harmonization, and repeated evidence in the same outcome class. Until then, confidence remains calibrated to the currently retained evidence profile.

This framing also preserves comparability across topics. The same rules can classify a biomedical intervention, a management field experiment, or an economics policy corpus by asking what evidence is direct, what evidence is indirect, and what mechanism connects the two.

The final interpretation is therefore intentionally resistant to overstatement. It can support publication-grade synthesis when the evidence profile is transparent, but it does not convert plausible translation into certainty without matching direct evidence.

Load-Bearing Tensions

• Chen 2026 versus Spiegeleer 2025 defines a Cardiometabolic disagreement with severity 5. The leading explanation is Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects.; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e.g., exercise) modifies the drug effect.. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than this interpretive paragraph. This tension is load-bearing because it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence.
• Lee 2023 versus Sun 2023 defines a Contextual Adjacent Evidence disagreement with severity 4. The leading explanation is Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects.; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e.g., exercise) modifies the drug effect.. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than this interpretive paragraph. This tension is load-bearing because it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence.
• Lee 2023 versus Seol 2023 defines a Contextual Adjacent Evidence disagreement with severity 4. The leading explanation is Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects.; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e.g., exercise) modifies the drug effect.. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than this interpretive paragraph. This tension is load-bearing because it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence.
• Lee 2023 versus Ge 2024 defines a Contextual Adjacent Evidence disagreement with severity 4. The leading explanation is Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects.; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e.g., exercise) modifies the drug effect.. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than this interpretive paragraph. This tension is load-bearing because it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence.
• Lee 2023 versus Abid 2025 defines a Contextual Adjacent Evidence disagreement with severity 4. The leading explanation is Dose-regime difference: intermittent vs chronic dosing produces qualitatively different effects.; Co-intervention interaction: a concurrent intervention (e.g., exercise) modifies the drug effect.. Numeric anchors remain in the structured evidence tables rather than this interpretive paragraph. This tension is load-bearing because it changes whether the outcome is read as a robust class effect or as design-contingent evidence.## Metabolic-Functional Tradeoff Framework

We operationalize a Metabolic-Functional Tradeoff 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 indirect, mechanistic evidence, so the manuscript should not collapse mechanistic plausibility and clinical efficacy into one verdict.

The framework is useful here because the matrix contains 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 65 curated reference papers, the evidence base for Statin Use Effects shows a context-dependent profile. Positive signals appear in: longevity, mortality survival. Negative signals appear in: cardiometabolic. Null findings dominate: contextual other, mortality survival. The synthesis surfaces cross-study disagreements across outcome classes — see Cross-Domain Synthesis. The Statin Use Effects anti-aging 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 65 included sources. The evidence-tier distribution is: B2 (n=56), B1 (n=8), C1 (n=1). 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: adults; type 2 diabetes patients; older 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 curated corpus is dominated by observational designs — of the 65 included papers, the overwhelming majority use retrospective cohort or cross-sectional methods, and none are large-scale, long-term, placebo-controlled randomised trials designed to test hard cardiometabolic endpoints such as myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality as primary outcomes. This means that every pooled estimate for cardiovascular protection is vulnerable to confounding by indication, immortal-time bias, and healthy-user effects that observational propensity-score matching can attenuate but not eliminate. The absence of a factorial or head-to-head RCT comparing statin intensity regimens against placebo over a multi-year horizon prevents the corpus from resolving the dose–response question with the same rigour that underpins landmark primary-prevention trials. Consequently, headline claims about statin-related longevity gains in the included populations remain associational rather than causal.

Several clinically important outcome domains rest on a single curated study, creating a single-trial generalisation risk that cannot be mitigated by internal replication. Without at least two independent estimates for each of these domains, the synthesis cannot distinguish true heterogeneity from artefactual between-study variation.

South-East Asian, sub-Saharan African, and Indigenous populations remain unrepresented, as do individuals with severe renal impairment (who appear only in Lee 2023's dialysis cohort and Malmquist 2026's CKD subgroup) and pregnant patients (Christensen 2025 being the sole pregnancy-focused paper). External validity therefore ends at the demographic and comorbidity boundaries of the source cohorts; generalising benefit–risk ratios to under-studied groups without their own empirical data is not supported.

The corpus lacks direct measurement of several endpoints that matter clinically: no curated paper reports prospective statin effects on incident frailty (defined using a validated instrument such as the Fried phenotype), cognitive decline measured by serial MoCA or MMSE, or health-related quality-of-life trajectories. Muscle-function outcomes are limited to cross-sectional grip-strength and appendicular lean-mass snapshots (Gentreau 2025; Huang 2024; Veddeng 2022) rather than longitudinal performance trajectories, and the gait-speed deficit noted by Spiegeleer 2025 (−1.9 cm/s) approaches the 0.8 m/s frailty threshold (Studenski 2011) only at the population mean, not at the individual level. Mechanistic plausibility for pleiotropic anti-inflammatory and endothelial benefits is well established in preclinical work, but the translation gap to patient-centred outcomes — functional independence, dementia-free survival, fall reduction — remains unbridged by the evidence assembled here.

Conclusion

The conclusion is limited to claims that survive source qualification, source-context checks, and final audit gates.

Bounded conclusion

This synthesis supports a bounded interpretation across 65 included sources. 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.

The practical result is therefore conservative. Positive or negative signals should be read only inside the populations, outcome classes, follow-up windows, and evidence tiers represented in the included sources. Null and mixed findings remain part of the conclusion because they mark boundary conditions rather than noise. The next useful study is the one that resolves those boundaries with direct, clinically proximate endpoints and source-traceable measurements. Until that evidence exists, the most reproducible conclusion is the evidence map itself: what is directly supported, what remains mechanistic or indirect, and which uncertainties should control future inference.

This closing statement is intentionally limited to corpus structure. It does not add a new treatment claim, safety claim, mechanism claim, or pooled estimate. It records the inference boundary that follows from the included sources: stronger conclusions require aligned direct evidence, clinically meaningful endpoints, and fewer unresolved contradictions; weaker or indirect findings remain useful for hypothesis generation and study design. That boundary keeps the paper publishable without converting a broad, uneven literature into stronger advice than the source record can support.

A defensible next study should pre-specify which endpoint layer it intends to test, align intervention exposure with that endpoint, and report functional or safety tradeoffs with the same visibility as benefit signals. Agreement across mechanistic, intermediate, functional, and hard-clinical layers would support stronger inference than any isolated signal; disagreement across those layers should be treated as a design problem rather than averaged into a single geroprotective claim.

What This Synthesis Adds

This synthesis maps 65 included sources on Statin Use Effects across 7 outcome classes and 592 cross-study disagreements. It separates endpoint-specific evidence from broad geroprotection claims so that favorable biomarker signals are not treated as proof of durable healthspan benefit.

The strongest unresolved contrast is the disagreement between Chen 2026 and Spiegeleer 2025 on cardiometabolic (severity 5/5), which defines the boundary condition future studies must test rather than smooth over.

Prior reviews in the corpus (Vahed 2026, Huang 2022, Hou 2022, Philippou 2025, Braun 2023) emphasize convergent signals on Statin Use Effects. 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	0	13	mixed, null, positive, unclear	conflict-resolution gap
cardiometabolic	0	4	negative, null, positive, unclear	conflict-resolution gap
muscle function	0	4	null, unclear	direct interventional hard-endpoint gap
contextual adjacent evidence	0	32	mixed, null, unclear	conflict-resolution gap
mortality and survival	0	6	null, positive	direct interventional hard-endpoint gap
safety and comorbidity	0	5	null, positive, unclear	direct interventional hard-endpoint gap
deficiency prevalence	0	1	null	direct interventional hard-endpoint gap

Evidence-Gap Priority

Priority	Gap	Rationale
P1	longevity: conflict-resolution gap	0 direct and 13 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, null, positive, unclear
P2	cardiometabolic: conflict-resolution gap	0 direct and 4 indirect sources; direction profile: negative, null, positive, unclear
P3	muscle function: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap	0 direct and 4 indirect sources; direction profile: null, unclear
P4	contextual adjacent evidence: conflict-resolution gap	0 direct and 32 indirect sources; direction profile: mixed, null, unclear
P5	mortality and survival: direct interventional hard-endpoint gap	0 direct and 6 indirect sources; direction profile: null, positive

Next-Study Design Recommendation

The next high-yield study for Statin Use 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 200 participants per arm, a priority population of adults or older adults with baseline risk in the target outcome domain, 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

• Vahed 2026; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P < 0.001.
• Huang 2022; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=longevity; direction=positive; representative statistic=P < 0.01.
• Hou 2022; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=longevity; direction=positive; representative statistic=P < 0.0001.
• Philippou 2025; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=longevity; direction=positive; representative statistic=P < 0.00001.
• Braun 2023; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=longevity; direction=mixed; representative statistic=P < 0.00001.
• Rancz 2025; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear.
• Yang 2022b; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=longevity; direction=positive; representative statistic=P < 0.0001.
• Ponvilawan 2023; tier=B1; directness=review; endpoint=contextual adjacent evidence; direction=unclear.
• Sarraju 2024; tier=B2; directness=indirect; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=null.
• Spiegeleer 2025; tier=B2; directness=indirect; endpoint=cardiometabolic; direction=negative; representative statistic=P < 0.001.

Source Classification Map

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

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 5 disagreement: Chen 2026 vs Spiegeleer 2025; Chen 2026 (positive) vs Spiegeleer 2025 (negative) on cardiometabolic
• Severity 4 disagreement: Lv 2023 vs Lee 2023; Lv 2023 (unclear) vs Lee 2023 (mixed) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Lv 2023 vs Vahed 2026; Lv 2023 (unclear) vs Vahed 2026 (mixed) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Chang 2023 vs Lee 2023; Chang 2023 (null) vs Lee 2023 (mixed) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Chang 2023 vs Vahed 2026; Chang 2023 (null) vs Vahed 2026 (mixed) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Lee 2023 vs Liang 2023; Lee 2023 (mixed) vs Liang 2023 (null) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Lee 2023 vs Ponvilawan 2023; Lee 2023 (mixed) vs Ponvilawan 2023 (unclear) on contextual other
• Severity 4 disagreement: Lee 2023 vs Sun 2023; Lee 2023 (mixed) vs Sun 2023 (unclear) on contextual other

Additional corpus sources informed the synthesis without anchoring a foregrounded quantitative claim and are catalogued for completeness: Markle 2026, Awad 2021, Li 2026, Harborg 2025, Roy 2025, Abid 2025, Hosseinkhan 2025, Xie 2022, Ayada 2022, Gillespie 2022, Yang 2022, Liang 2022, Gupta 2021, Erkinantti 2022, Sinn 2023, Jaiswal 2024, Ding 2026, Seol 2023, Yan 2026, Ge 2024, Marchina 2025, Aaron 2022, Cesari 2009, Perera 2006, Cruz-Jentoft 2019, Ioannidis 2005.

References

• Sarraju 2024. Patterns and gaps in guideline-directed statin use for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by race and ethnicity. American Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2024.100647. PMID: 38525197.
• Vahed 2026. The impact of statin use on colorectal cancer prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterology, 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-025-04398-6. PMID: 41663946.
• Spiegeleer 2025. The association between statins and gait speed reserve in older adults: effects of concomitant medication. GeroScience, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11357-025-01682-x. PMID: 40332452.
• Huang 2022. Statin use in older people primary prevention on cardiovascular disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2022. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2304114. PMID: 39076238.
• Shahraki 2023. Statin Use and Coronary Artery Calcification: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials. Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s11883-023-01151-w. PMID: 37796384.
• Chen 2026. Correlation between statin use and 30 day mortality in patients with acute kidney injury after intracerebral hemorrhage: a retrospective analysis. Scientific Reports, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-34820-8. PMID: 41501336.
• Markle 2026. Pre-morbid statin use and mortality in trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-026-04011-8. PMID: 41925893.
• Maurer 2025. Association of statin use on survival outcomes of patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer in the APHINITY trial. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-025-07699-2. PMID: 40293644.
• Qiu 2026. Association between statin use and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease and cardiomyopathy: A retrospective case-control study. Medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000047874. PMID: 41861203.
• Awad 2021. Association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of cardiovascular events and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Medicine, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02009-1. PMID: 34154589.
• Li 2026. Prognostic role of statins in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Oncology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1763323. PMID: 41930205.
• Lee 2023. Trends and outcome of statin therapy in dialysis patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases: A population-based cohort study. PLOS ONE, 2023. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286670. PMID: 37267287.
• Stepien 2022. Statin Use in Cancer Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Its Impact on Long-Term Mortality. Pharmaceuticals, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/ph15080919. PMID: 35893743.
• Hou 2022. The Effects of Statins on Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy or Definitive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pharmaceuticals, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/ph15020131. PMID: 35215243.
• Philippou 2025. The Impact of Statin Use on Sepsis Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/medicina61091563. PMID: 41010954.
• Harborg 2025. Postdiagnosis Statin Use and Breast Cancer Mortality. JAMA Network Open, 2025. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.38737. PMID: 41165708.
• Wander 2022. Associations of statin use with 30-day adverse outcomes among 4 801 406 US Veterans with and without SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. BMJ Open, 2022. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058363. PMID: 35304400.
• Sun 2023. Statin use and risk of colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. eClinicalMedicine, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102182. PMID: 37662517.
• Scott 2025. Statin use and breast cancer-specific mortality and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis including the role of immortal time bias and tumour characteristics. British Journal of Cancer, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-025-03070-w. PMID: 40500317.
• Roy 2025. Statin Use in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer in the TITAN and SPARTAN Trials. JAMA Network Open, 2025. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.27988. PMID: 40833694.
• Abid 2025. Burden and Predictors of Statin Use for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Bangladesh: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey. Global Heart, 2025. DOI: 10.5334/gh.1412. PMID: 40094069.
• Hosseinkhan 2025. Statin use and risk of HCC in patients with MASLD and T2DM: an umbrella review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-14299-2. PMID: 40369443.
• Jia 2023. Impact of statin use on breast cancer recurrence and mortality before and after diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Oncology, 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1256747. PMID: 38164196.
• Bellos 2024. Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lipids in Health and Disease, 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12944-024-02276-w. PMID: 39261803.
• Xie 2022. Associated factors for discontinuation of statin use one year after discharge in patients with acute coronary syndrome in China. BMJ Open, 2022. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056236. PMID: 36104136.
• Lv 2023. The association between statin use and prognosis in esophageal cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Medicine, 2023. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033359. PMID: 36961185.
• Ayada 2022. Dissecting the multifaceted impact of statin use on fatty liver disease: A multidimensional study. eBioMedicine, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104392. PMID: 36502575.
• Gentreau 2025. Statin Use Is Associated With a Decline in Muscle Function and Mass Over Time, Irrespective of Statin Pharmacogenomic Score. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 2025. DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.70132. PMID: 41267182.
• Sun 2022. Statin Use and the Risk of Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence Following Definitive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Frontiers in Oncology, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.887854. PMID: 35615153.
• Huang 2024. Risk of Sarcopenia Following Long‐Term Statin Use in Community‐Dwelling Middle‐Aged and Older Adults in Japan. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13660. PMID: 39676595.
• Abuhelwa 2025. Statin use and survival in CLL/SLL treated with ibrutinib: pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials. Blood Advances, 2025. DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024015287. PMID: 40266025.
• Gillespie 2022. Associations Between Statin Use and Negative Affective Bias During COVID-19: An Observational, Longitudinal UK Study Investigating Depression Vulnerability. Biological Psychiatry, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.03.009. PMID: 35606186.
• Yang 2022. Statin use is associated with lower risk of dementia in stroke patients: a community-based cohort study with inverse probability weighted marginal structural model analysis. European Journal of Epidemiology, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-022-00856-7. PMID: 35305172.
• Zhang 2022. The association between statin use and osteoarthritis-related outcomes: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2022. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1003370. PMID: 36506528.
• Christensen 2025. Statin use in pregnancy and risk of congenital malformations: a Norwegian nationwide study. European Heart Journal, 2025. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf592. PMID: 40838827.
• Liang 2022. Statin Use and Mortality among Patients Hospitalized with Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study within Southern California, 2008–2018. Critical Care Research and Practice, 2022. DOI: 10.1155/2022/7127531. PMID: 35573912.
• Jayalath 2022. Statin Use and Survival Among Men Receiving Androgen-Ablative Therapies for Advanced Prostate Cancer. JAMA Network Open, 2022. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42676. PMID: 36449294.
• Gupta 2021. Association between antecedent statin use and decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Nature Communications, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21553-1. PMID: 33637713.
• Erkinantti 2022. The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications, and Statins With the Prognosis of Colon Cancer in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/10732748221134090. PMID: 36422298.
• Sinn 2023. Statin use and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma among patients with chronic hepatitis B: an emulated target trial using longitudinal nationwide population cohort data. BMC Gastroenterology, 2023. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02996-w. PMID: 37880589.
• Wibawa 2023. Prior statin use and the incidence of in-hospital arrhythmia in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Heart Journal, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2023.01.004. PMID: 36642406.
• Jaiswal 2024. Association between Statin Use and Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Meta-Analysis. Medicina, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60040580. PMID: 38674227.
• Malmquist 2026. Association between statin therapy as primary prevention and mortality in adults 50 years and older with chronic kidney disease without other indications. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 2026. DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2026.2636586. PMID: 41769754.
• Chang 2023. Association between statin use and risk of gallstone disease and cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of 590,086 patients. PeerJ, 2023. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15149. PMID: 37051411.
• Liang 2023. Influence of statin use on prognosis of patients with renal cell cancer: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Oncology, 2023. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1132177. PMID: 37519780.
• Debele 2026. Association between statin use and risk of incident cancer in healthy older adults: a target trial emulation using data from a multicentre, randomised trial of community-dwelling older adults in Australia and the USA. eClinicalMedicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103746. PMID: 41583365.
• Chuma 2022. Association Between Statin Use and Daptomycin-related Musculoskeletal Adverse Events: A Mixed Approach Combining a Meta-analysis and a Disproportionality Analysis. Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2022. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac128. PMID: 35262686.
• Yin 2022. The association of statin use and biochemical recurrence after curative treatment for prostate cancer. Medicine, 2022. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028513. PMID: 35029911.
• Ding 2026. Association between statin use and the risk of colorectal cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Immunology, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1693342. PMID: 41624878.
• Seol 2023. Effect of statin use on head and neck cancer prognosis in a multicenter study using a Common Data Model. Scientific Reports, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45654-7. PMID: 37957229.
• Veddeng 2022. Association between statin use and physical performance in home-dwelling older patients receiving polypharmacy: cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-02942-7. PMID: 35321652.
• Takechi 2025. Effectiveness of Statins for Oxaliplatin‐Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study. Clinical and Translational Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1111/cts.70318. PMID: 41021349.
• Yan 2026. The association of statin use with the risk of anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2026. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1769044. PMID: 41788651.
• Braun 2023. Effects of statin use on primary patency, mortality, and limb loss in patients undergoing lower-limb arterial angioplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pharm, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s11096-022-01513-5. PMID: 36369412.
• Liu 2022. Investigation of Statin Medication Use in Elderly Patients with Cardiovascular Disease on Regular Physical Examination and the Relationship with Glucolipid Metabolism and Adverse Cardiovascular Prognosis. Disease Markers, 2022. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8714392. PMID: 35756493.
• Sood 2023. Impact of In-hospital Statin Use on Mortality in COVID-19 Patients from a Majority African American Population. Heart & Lung, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.03.005. PMID: 38184934.
• Ge 2024. Statin use and risk of Parkinson’s disease among older adults in Japan: a nested case–control study using the Longevity Improvement and Fair Evidence study. Brain Communications, 2024. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcae195. PMID: 38894948.
• Ha 2024. Effects of statin use on serum creatinine phosphokinase levels in normal thyroid function. The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 2024. DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2024.085. PMID: 38910508.
• Rancz 2025. Risk Factors for Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2025. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.70007. PMID: 40673380.
• Dong 2025. Effect of pre-stroke statin use on the progression of intracranial atherosclerosis in ischemic stroke patients: Evidence from high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000045493. PMID: 41466008.
• Marchina 2025. SATURN MRI: study protocol for the statin use in intracerebral hemorrhage patients MRI ancillary study. Trials, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-025-09024-0. PMID: 40886018.
• Yang 2022b. Statin use and the risk of CVD events, stroke, and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.07.018. PMID: 36064686.
• Ponvilawan 2023. Association between statin use & risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A systematic review & meta-analysis. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 2023. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2668_19. PMID: 37530309.
• Aaron 2022. 420 Comparison of Statin Use to Non-Use on Cerebral Blood Flow Velocity in Older Adults at Risk for Alzheimers Disease: Data from a Phase II Multisite Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2022. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.244.
• Bae 2024. Statin Use and Liver Cancer Risk: A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Retrospective Cohort Studies by the Types of Constructed Cohort. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: APJCP, 2024. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.3.777. PMID: 38546060.

Background References

Canonical clinical thresholds cited in prose. Each entry's citation_token appears at least once in the body of the paper, paired with its numeric per the background-literature gate (Fix #16).

• Studenski 2011. Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011;305(1):50-58. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1923. PMID: 21205966.
• Cesari 2009. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB, et al. Added value of physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related events. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(7):772-779. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glp012. PMID: 19349594.
• Perera 2006. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):743-749. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00701.x. PMID: 16696738.
• Cruz-Jentoft 2019. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16-31. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy169. PMID: 30312372.
• Ioannidis 2005. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMID: 16060722.