Methodology
From a compelling claim
to an evidence-aware decision.
The project deliberately separates biological plausibility from demonstrated human benefit. A mechanism can be interesting without proving that an intervention produces a meaningful clinical effect.
Our six-step review framework
1 · Claim
What is actually being recommended?
2 · Mechanism
Is there a plausible physiological pathway?
3 · Human evidence
What studies exist, and in whom?
4 · Effect size
Is the observed difference practically or clinically meaningful?
5 · Risk
What harms, interactions, contraindications or opportunity costs matter?
6 · Application
What can a typical person reasonably do with this information?
Evidence hierarchy
Where possible, we distinguish systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, mechanistic human studies, animal or laboratory evidence, and expert interpretation.
The strength of a recommendation should not exceed the strength of the evidence supporting it.
Transparency
ChatGPT supports structuring, translation, language adaptation and presentation. Human review, source checking and continuous correction remain essential.
When evidence is uncertain, the uncertainty should remain visible rather than being converted into a confident recommendation.
Safety and scope
This project is for education and health literacy. It does not replace individualized medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Personal decisions should be compared with the original source material and, where appropriate, discussed with a qualified healthcare professional.
