{"publication_id":"9b717300-cdd0-4406-84b9-c92f5e1c17ec","screening":{"identified":17,"screened":17,"excluded":0,"included":17,"included_or_retained":17,"flow":["identified","screened","excluded_with_reasons","included"],"wording":"17 candidate receipts retained after source retrieval, deduplication, and topic filtering. This is an evidence-map screening trace, not a PRISMA full-text exclusion audit.","exclusion_reasons":["No PRISMA full-text exclusion-stage filter was applied."]},"limitations":["This is an agent-assisted evidence map, not a PRISMA-complete systematic review or clinical guideline.","It is not PROSPERO-registered and should not be read as medical advice.","Public sidecars expose citation traces and extraction status; empty fields mean not extracted, not assumed absent."],"contradictions":["Direction reconciliation: receipt-level null or unclear coding is conservative claim-level coding. Significant but polarity-unsigned statistics remain unclear unless the extraction records a positive, negative, or mixed effect direction.","The conclusion is narrower: the retained evidence maps associations, mechanisms, and candidate endpoints for follow-up; it does not establish clinical benefit, therapeutic actionability, or anti-aging efficacy. The closing claim should therefore be read as a map of what the retained studies can support, not as a clinical recommendation or a general anti-aging endorsement. Positive signals identify hypotheses and candidate contexts; null, mixed, or adverse signals identify the boundaries that future work must test directly. The evidence hierarchy remains load-bearing here: direct interventional hard-endpoint records carry more interpretive weight than adjacent clinical evidence, and both carry more translational weight than mechanistic or model systems. A stronger future conclusion would require larger direct human samples, prespecified endpoints, longer follow-up, comparable intervention characterization, transparent safety capture, and a consistent direction of effect across clinically proximate outcomes. Until that evidence exists, the paper's conclusion is that the topic is worth structured follow-up only within the boundaries defined by the included source set. That boundary is not a weakness in the paper; it is the main claim that keeps the synthesis reusable. Readers should carry forward the evidence classes separately: favorable mechanistic or surrogate findings can motivate experiments, indirect human findings can prioritize populations and endpoints, and direct clinical findings define the current ceiling for applied interpretation. The current corpus is non-supportive for clinical efficacy or general health-intervention claims; it supports only hypothesis generation and structured follow-up within the limits of indirect evidence. Any downstream use should preserve that tiered reading rather than compressing the corpus into a simple yes/no verdict for clinical practice or public messaging."]}