> I wouldn’t be so harsh.

I'm not being harsh. This is basic due diligence that the editors and reviewers at Aging must do, by their own rules.

Aging agreed to follow the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) rules (for many reasons including pressure from funding agencies). Those rules are fairly extensive. Among them is that you register your trial, then after you're done you must complete your trial and update it. The ICMJE rules literally say "The purpose of clinical trial registration is to prevent selective publication and selective reporting of research outcomes"

The 62 patients aren't theoretical. They actually existed and were enrolled in the trial. That's why the preregistration says

> Actual Enrollment : 62 participants

Before the authors completed the trial it would have said "Anticipated Enrollment". They had to update this field to be able to publish according to the ICMJE.

So this data exists. What happened to it?

Did the authors cherry pick? Then they could show that God exists.

Did the authors exclude subjects because they died, declined too much, developed diabetes, etc? Then that completely biases their results. They need to carefully explain what happened. They need to correct for this source of bias in all of their statistics and can't just publish whatever they want and pretend the study as registered didn't exist.

This wasn't a mistake either. If you look at the data sharing section they said they're undecided if they will give you the raw data to check their results. I wonder why?

But it gets worse. This violates a whole list of Aging's rules. https://www.aging-us.com/for-authors

> Aging supports the position of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration. All trials initiated after 1 July 2005 must be registered prospectively in a publicly accessible registry (i.e., before patient recruitment has begun), or they will not be considered for publication. Authors of randomized controlled trials must adhere to the CONSORT reporting guidelines appropriate to their trial design. Please check the CONSORT statement Web site for information on the appropriate guidelines for specific trial types. Before the paper can enter peer review authors must: 1) name in the paper trial registry, trial registration number, and IRB and 2) provide a copy of the trial protocol and a completed CONSORT checklist as supporting files. The CONSORT flow diagram must be included as Figure 1. Any deviation from the trial protocol must be explained in the paper. Authors must explicitly discuss informed consent in their paper, and AGING reserves the right to ask for a copy of the patient consent form. Information on statistical methods or participants beyond what is indicated in the CONSORT statement should be reported in the Methods section.

Where's the CONSORT checklist? Where's the CONSORT flow diagram? "Any deviation from the trial protocol must be explained in the paper"

Let's look at another random paper from the same edition of Aging. "Association between tooth loss rate and risk of mild cognitive impairment in older adults: a population-based longitudinal study". https://www.aging-us.com/article/203504/pdf Figure 1 is the CONSORT flow diagram as required by Aging's own rules.

This is a boondoggle that doesn't even meet the most basic criteria for scientific publications.