Oliver's mTOR Atlas Evidence Platform
Reading level
Mode

Everything the landmark literature shows about mTOR — and everything it doesn't

The mTOR Atlas is an evidence-first map of the mTOR research landscape — bringing together the key studies, mechanisms, interventions, diseases, outcomes and researchers that shape our understanding of mTOR.

It is designed to make that literature easier to navigate while keeping an important distinction: what has been demonstrated, what is an interpretation, and what remains a hypothesis.

362
most relevant studies
35
tested in humans
283
animal + mechanistic
1975
the story begins

Explore the Atlas

Pathway Molecular components and mechanisms connected into a navigable view of the mTOR system. interactive map Studies Explore the underlying evidence, compare findings and follow results back to the original research. 362 studies Researchers The people behind the field, and how different groups shaped our understanding of mTOR. 953 names · 119 with a profile The Field How the field got here and how it is organised — timeline and schools. timeline & schools Academy Learn the biology from the beginning, then practise reading evidence. lessons & arena Events Conferences and meetings — where mTOR research is happening right now. 41 events

The evidence pyramid

362 studies, a hundred different kinds of evidence. This shows how the Atlas's corpus is distributed across levels of evidence — from test-tube mechanisms to large human trials. Colours match the evidence markers used throughout the Atlas.

Systematic Reviewmeta-analyses
2
Human Clinical TrialRCTs, phase 2/3
23
Human Observationalnon-randomized
12
↑ only 12 observational studies in the Atlas — still a thin tier
Animal Studymouse, fly, worm…
102
Mechanistic / In Vitrocells, biochemistry, structure
181

Outside the evidence hierarchy

42 records describe a form of publication, not a level of evidence, so they sit beside the 320-study pyramid rather than inside it.

The letter on a record says what kind of study produced a finding — not how good it is. What the evidence codes mean →