In this Optispan Podcast, the focus is on empowering listeners to critically evaluate geroscience research. In Part II of a two-part series on a study examining the effects of a supplement called "Leap Years" on canine cognitive function, Matt delves into a bioRxiv preprint, scrutinizing the clinical trial's methodology. He questions various aspects, such as data exclusion, lack of transparency about the supplement's ingredients, and the use of an unvalidated assessment tool. He then discusses what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the study and whether he would personally use the supplement for his dog. Part I covers the importance of questioning bold claims made in the study's press release.

Key Points:

The Optispan Podcast promotes thoughtful analysis of geroscience research. In Part II of this series, Matt examines a study on the supplement "Leap Years" for dogs, questioning its methods and conclusions, and discusses whether he'd use it for his own pet.

• Study Critique of Leap Years Supplement: The podcast discusses a clinical trial on dogs, claiming that the supplement "Leap Years" reverses ageing. Host Matt Kaeberlein critiques the study for not providing robust data to support the supplement's efficacy.
• Limitations of Preprints: The host highlights concerns about the use of preprint servers for marketing purposes, stressing that preprints lack peer review and should be approached with caution, especially when used to promote products.
• Questionable Data: Kaeberlein notes significant flaws in the study's design, such as the absence of clear identification of the supplement’s active ingredients and issues with data transparency, including incomplete data and lack of statistical rigor.
• Placebo Effects and Cognitive Function: The study's claims of improved cognitive function in dogs are scrutinized, with the podcast emphasizing that any observed effects are likely placebo-driven rather than due to the supplement.
• Ethical Concerns: The discussion raises ethical issues around promoting health products based on non-peer-reviewed data, urging for more scientific rigor before making claims to the public.