Evidence Priority
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, society position stands, and randomized controlled trials carry the most weight. Mechanistic and animal evidence is treated as supporting context, not proof.
Editorial policy
Ratings are assigned to claims, not hype.
Our editorial process is designed to keep supplement pages useful, skeptical, and auditable. A supplement can be biologically plausible and still score poorly if human training evidence is weak.
Claim Specificity
We rate the claim a buyer is likely to care about. A sleep, mood, appetite, or recovery signal can earn credit when it is genuinely supported, but it does not become a muscle-gain or fat-loss claim by implication.
Practical Fit
Ratings consider effect size, population, dose, timing, tolerability, product quality, and how directly the supported claim maps to a reader's likely goal.
Review Updates
Pages are updated when major new meta-analyses, position stands, safety notices, or high-quality trials change the practical meaning of the evidence. Low-scoring products remain visible so readers can see why they are not broadly recommended.
Correction Handling
Reader corrections are judged by whether they change the practical claim, evidence strength, dose context, caveat, or product-quality risk. New papers are not added simply to increase source count; they need to improve the verdict or make an important limitation clearer.