Science & Methodology
An honest look at how we evaluate supplements, what we rely on, and where we're careful not to over-claim.
What the Application Reviews
- Human clinical evidence
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Randomized controlled trials
- Government health guidance
- Established clinical guidelines
- Known supplement–drug interactions
- Known condition-specific cautions
Evidence Hierarchy
We prioritize sources in roughly this order:
- Clinical guidelines
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Randomized controlled trials
- Observational studies
- Mechanistic studies
- Animal studies
- Expert opinion
- Marketing claims (given no weight)
Evidence Ratings
Low
Limited, inconsistent, or early-stage evidence — mainly theoretical or preliminary.
Moderate
Some supportive human research; findings may be mixed or population-specific.
Strong
Multiple credible human studies with reasonably consistent findings.
Very Strong
Extensive, consistent human evidence — or strong support for correcting a confirmed deficiency.
Limitations
- Research changes; evidence may depend on dose and population.
- Product quality and bioavailability vary between brands.
- User-entered information may be incomplete.
- The app cannot review undisclosed conditions or medications.
- The app does not replace professional medical judgment.
- Interaction databases may not capture every possible interaction.
Responsible AI
The application is designed to:
- Use conservative language
- Avoid certainty where evidence is limited
- Flag high-risk scenarios for professional review
- Encourage consultation with qualified professionals
- Avoid fabricated citations
- Distinguish emerging evidence from established evidence