Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 661

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals.

Open access
Altman, D G, Gore, S M, Gardner, M J, Pocock, S J·1983·BMJ

Abstract

ABSTRACT One of the most robust and reproducible methods to prolong lifespan in a variety of organisms is inhibition of the mTORC1 (mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1) pathway. mTORC1 is a metabolic sensor that promotes anabolic growth when nutrients are abundant. Inhibition of mTORC1 extends lifespan, but also frequently has other effects such as stunted growth, slowed development, reduced fertility, and disrupted metabolism. It has long been assumed that suppression of anabolism and resulting phenotypes such as impaired growth and reproduction may be causal to mTORC1 longevity, but this hypothesis has not been directly tested. RAGA-1 is an upstream activator of TORC1. Previous work from our lab using a C. elegans model of mTORC1 longevity, the long-lived raga-1 null mutant, found that the presence of raga-1 only in the neurons suppresses longevity of the null mutant. Here, we use the auxin-inducible degradation (AID) system to test whether neuronal mTORC1 inhibition is sufficient for longevity, and whether any changes in lifespan are also linked to stunted growth or fertility. We find that life-long AID of RAGA-1 either in all somatic tissue or only in the neurons of C. elegans is sufficient to extend lifespan. We also find that AID of RAGA-1 or LET-363/mTOR beginning at day 1 of adulthood extends lifespan to a similar extent. Unlike somatic degradation of RAGA-1, neuronal degradation of RAGA-1 doesn’t impair growth, slow development, or decrease the reproductive capacity of the worms. Lastly, while AID of LET-363/mTOR in all somatic cells shortens lifespan, neuronal AID of LET-363/mTOR slows aging. This work demonstrates that targeting mTORC1 specifically in the neurons uncouples longevity from growth and reproductive impairments, challenging previously held ideas about the mechanisms of mTORC1 longevity and elucidating the promise of tissue-specific aging therapeutics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. O'Fallon JR, Dubey SB, Salsburg DS, et al. Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers? Biometrics 1978;34:687-95. · DOI

Cited by

See all 661

Metadata

Authors
Altman, D. G., Gore, S. M., Gardner, M. J., & Pocock, S. J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1983-05-07
Volume
286
Issue
6376
Pages
1489-1493
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2055146603
Cited by
661
References
0
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489
The paper
Altman, D. G., Gore, S. M., Gardner, M. J., & Pocock, S. J. (1983). Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.