Extreme Longevity Areas: Redefining the Need for A Transparent and Standardized Framework.

IF 9.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
José María Faílde Garrido, María Dolores Dapía Conde, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mónica Pérez-Ríos, Guadalupe García
{"title":"Extreme Longevity Areas: Redefining the Need for A Transparent and Standardized Framework.","authors":"José María Faílde Garrido, María Dolores Dapía Conde, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Mónica Pérez-Ríos, Guadalupe García","doi":"10.14336/AD.2026.0673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept of extreme longevity areas, geographically circumscribed areas with an extremely high prevalence of centenarians compared with surrounding regions, has attracted increasing scientific and public attention in recent decades. The Extreme Longevity Index (ELI), based on birth-cohort survival, is the main operational metric currently used to identify such areas. However, its application remains highly heterogeneous, and no standardized and transparent framework exists for the robust and reproducible characterization of extreme longevity patterns. In this commentary, we identify key methodological limitations in current approaches and argue for the need to strengthen the conceptual basis of this field. These limitations include insufficiently defined population denominators, variability in the handling of migrations, inconsistent spatial analytical approaches, lack of agreed thresholds for defining extreme values, limited specification of appropriate observation periods, and variable standards of registry quality and age validation. We further argue that a more robust approach should incorporate mechanisms for periodic reassessment, broader demographic profiling beyond centenarians alone, and clearer definitions of territorial continuity. In the absence of such methodological standardization, the validity and comparability of reported extreme longevity areas remain uncertain, including the calculations used to characterize previously described regions. Establishing a coherent and transparent framework is therefore necessary to strengthen the scientific foundations of this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":7434,"journal":{"name":"Aging and Disease","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2026.0673","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of extreme longevity areas, geographically circumscribed areas with an extremely high prevalence of centenarians compared with surrounding regions, has attracted increasing scientific and public attention in recent decades. The Extreme Longevity Index (ELI), based on birth-cohort survival, is the main operational metric currently used to identify such areas. However, its application remains highly heterogeneous, and no standardized and transparent framework exists for the robust and reproducible characterization of extreme longevity patterns. In this commentary, we identify key methodological limitations in current approaches and argue for the need to strengthen the conceptual basis of this field. These limitations include insufficiently defined population denominators, variability in the handling of migrations, inconsistent spatial analytical approaches, lack of agreed thresholds for defining extreme values, limited specification of appropriate observation periods, and variable standards of registry quality and age validation. We further argue that a more robust approach should incorporate mechanisms for periodic reassessment, broader demographic profiling beyond centenarians alone, and clearer definitions of territorial continuity. In the absence of such methodological standardization, the validity and comparability of reported extreme longevity areas remain uncertain, including the calculations used to characterize previously described regions. Establishing a coherent and transparent framework is therefore necessary to strengthen the scientific foundations of this field.

极端长寿领域:重新定义透明和标准化框架的需求。
近几十年来,“极端长寿区”的概念引起了越来越多的科学和公众的关注。“极端长寿区”指的是地理上限定的、百岁老人患病率高于周边地区的区域。基于出生队列生存的极端寿命指数(ELI)是目前用于识别这些区域的主要操作指标。然而,它的应用仍然是高度异构的,并且没有标准化和透明的框架存在于极端寿命模式的稳健和可重复的表征中。在这篇评论中,我们指出了当前方法的主要方法局限性,并认为有必要加强这一领域的概念基础。这些限制包括人口分母定义不充分、移徙处理的可变性、空间分析方法不一致、缺乏确定极值的商定阈值、对适当观察期的规定有限以及登记质量和年龄验证的不同标准。我们进一步认为,更有力的方法应该包括定期重新评估机制,更广泛的人口统计分析,而不仅仅是百岁老人,以及更明确的领土连续性定义。在缺乏这种方法标准化的情况下,报告的极端长寿区域的有效性和可比性仍然不确定,包括用于描述先前描述区域特征的计算。因此,必须建立一个连贯和透明的框架,以加强这一领域的科学基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Aging and Disease
Aging and Disease GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
138
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Aging & Disease (A&D) is an open-access online journal dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research on the biology of aging, the pathophysiology of age-related diseases, and innovative therapies for conditions affecting the elderly. The scope encompasses various diseases such as Stroke, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson’s disease, Epilepsy, Dementia, Depression, Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Arthritis, Cataract, Osteoporosis, Diabetes, and Hypertension. The journal welcomes studies involving animal models as well as human tissues or cells.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书