A clearer view of
the longevity market.

The US Longevity Index foundation

The US Longevity Index is a planned research asset. No clinic dataset, market ranking or pricing benchmark has been published by Magnus yet. This page publishes the method we will use, so the work can be evaluated before conclusions are drawn.

The immediate value is a consistent way to compare publicly documented business offers. It can guide a clinic’s own market review without implying that listed services are effective or appropriate for a particular patient.

1. Define the scope before collecting

Start with a named geography, a collection window and explicit inclusion criteria. A candidate clinic must have a verifiable US location and publicly describe a longevity, preventive, precision or executive health offer. A wellness business is recorded separately if its model differs from a clinical practice.

Keep organizations and locations separate. A multi-location company should not be counted as several independent operators. Record what is verified, what the clinic claims and what remains unknown.

• Organization and location identifiers, website and city/state.
• Documented service categories, diagnostics and program structure.
• Publicly identified clinical leadership and the source of any credentials.
• Membership or one-time offer, with documented inclusions and exclusions.

2. Preserve the source behind every field

Use official clinic pages as primary sources for the clinic’s own offer. Save the source URL, access date, relevant excerpt and reviewer status alongside each observation. A clinic’s marketing statement is evidence of what it advertises, not independent evidence of a medical benefit.

Verify professional credentials with the appropriate official register when the study requires them. Review counts or profile data should come only from a permitted, documented collection method with the required rights and attribution. Missing data remains missing.

Observed

A field is explicitly present in the dated source.

Inferred

An analyst interpretation, labelled with its reasoning and kept separate from raw observations.

Unknown

The reviewed sources do not establish the fact. This is not a zero or a negative result.

3. Compare like with like

A membership price and a one-time executive assessment price answer different questions. Record currency, billing period, eligibility, included diagnostics, excluded services and the date before aggregating a price. Do not estimate an unpublished amount from a different clinic.

For example, “annual membership; imaging excluded” and “single assessment; imaging included” belong in different comparison groups. This is a normalization example, not an observed market finding.

Publish the sample size, collection dates, missing-data share and inclusion rules with any future summary. A convenience sample of clinics with public prices cannot establish a national average for all clinics.

4. Make limitations and corrections visible

Public pages can be incomplete or outdated. Services with similar names can have different scopes. Review volume does not measure clinical quality. Our index must not rank medical effectiveness or recommend treatment from commercial website data.

Every future release needs a version, an accountable editorial owner, a source manifest and a correction log. Medical interpretation requires qualified review. Commercial relationships and sponsorship must be disclosed and kept separate from inclusion and analytical conclusions.

To flag an error in this methodology or discuss a source, contact Magnus with the public URL and the specific correction. Do not send patient information.

How this informs search acquisition

A verified service inventory informs commercial SEO architecture. Real location data supports local search consistency. Transparent sources and original findings can support citation-ready AI search content. None of those steps guarantees coverage or citations.

Future publications may examine the US clinic landscape, executive health pricing or commonly advertised services. They will be released only when the data and method support the claim.

Standards we consult

• Google: creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
• Google: representing a real business accurately
• Google: AI features and your website

These references inform search and business-information practices. They do not validate a clinic’s medical claims.