↓ Skip to main content

Should we treat aging as a disease? The consequences and dangers of miscategorisation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Should we treat aging as a disease? The consequences and dangers of miscategorisation
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00171
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard G. A. Faragher

Abstract

The aging of the population represents one of the largest healthcare challenges facing the world today. The available scientific evidence shows that interventions are available now that can target fundamental "aging" processes or pathways. Sufficient economic evidence is available to argue convincingly that this approach will also save enormous sums of money which could then be deployed to solve other urgent global problems. However, as yet this scenario has barely entered the public consciousness and, far from being a point of vigorous debate, seems to be ignored by policy makers. Understanding why this lethargy exists is important given the urgent need to deal with the challenge represented by population aging. In this paper I hypothesize that one major cause of inaction is a widely held, but flawed, conceptual framework concerning the relationship between aging and disease that categorizes the former as "natural" and the latter as "abnormal." This perspective is sufficient in itself to act as a disincentive to intervention by rendering those who hold it prone to the "naturalistic fallacy" but can give rise to active hostility to biogerontology if coupled with loose and/or blurred understanding of the goals and potential of the field.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Professor 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,639,851
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#342
of 11,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,328
of 262,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#7
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.