Book review: Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity, by Eric Topol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I was somewhat disappointed, partly because the title misled me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The book is broad and shallow, as if he’s trying to show off how many topics he’s familiar with. Too much of the book consists of long lists of research that Topol finds interesting, but for which I see little connection with aging. He usually doesn’t say enough about the research for me to figure out why I should consider it promising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He mostly seems to be saying that the number of new research ideas ought to impress us. I care more about the quality of the most promising research than about the quantity of research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The book is mostly correct and up-to-date, but I’m unclear what kind of reader would get much out of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
My favorite chapter was about cancer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The main strategy that he endorses involves detecting and treating cancer much earlier than is currently done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is he aware of the downside that this would risk more harm, from the side effects of treating cancers that would have remained benign? Probably, but he’s not as explicit about that as I would like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He foresees mitigating that harm by better prediction about what treatment, if any, to use, and about whether screening for cancer is worthwhile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Currently doctors often decide whether to screen a patient for cancer based purely on the patient’s age. It’s possible to make more sophisticated decisions using an AI that considers hundreds of variables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It seems likely that many experts are underestimating the benefits of AI-enhanced predictions, but I’m left feeling uncertain about whether those benefits will be large compared to the risks of unnecessarily treating harmless early-stage cancers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’m glad that Topol rejects the standard practice of classifying cancer solely by the organ that it affects. He reports that it’s feasible, and at least sometimes beneficial, to classify cancers by their mutations or other molecular characteristics. It sounds like status quo bias is deterring much of the medical establishment from adopting that advice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Topol is optimistic about medical research, but puzzled about deploying the results:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nWhy aren’t we routinely assessing body-wide inflammation and building on the success of anti-inflammatory drugs \u2026 that significantly reduced fatal cancers \u2026 in a large randomized trial? Why aren’t we aggressively tackling air pollution, which is unquestionably promoting cancer?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
What I Didn’t Like<\/h3>\n\n\n\n