Methodology
Hope in the questions. Rigor in the answers.
Longevity science is moving quickly. Our job is to make that progress exciting to follow without turning early signals into promises. We keep four questions separate: how much human evidence exists, what the results show, what is known about safety, and how confident the interpretation is.
Evidence depth
A 0–100 research-depth score summarizes the amount and quality of relevant human research. It is not an efficacy score and does not mean an intervention works.
Results
Posted or published outcomes are interpreted as beneficial, neutral, harmful, mixed or unknown where the data support that classification. Unknown is never treated as neutral.
Safety
Safety is shown independently from efficacy and evidence volume. Sparse adverse-event reporting remains insufficient rather than reassuring.
Confidence
Confidence reflects how securely the available evidence can be interpreted. Small, indirect or incomplete evidence lowers confidence.
What is included
The live evidence layer links interventions to human trials, publications, registry results, population context and interpreted outcomes. Animal and mechanistic evidence is kept separate from human clinical evidence.
Important limitations
A registry result is not automatically positive, statistical significance is not the same as clinical importance, and evidence can be incomplete or change as studies are published. The site is informational and does not provide medical advice.
Current scoring model: v1.0-publication-candidate. Evidence is versioned so changes can be traced over time.
Browse interventions →