Candidate papers are found using ingredient names and major aliases. Papers with weak relevance, industrial or materials contexts, animal feed studies, or routes far from ordinary oral supplement use are excluded from efficacy scoring or separated into a different context.

The system distinguishes human studies, animal studies, cell studies, reviews, and randomized controlled trials. Disease-treatment or hospital-context findings are not mixed into ordinary supplement benefit summaries.

Scores combine paper count, study design, human relevance, consistency, and caution signals. They are not personal probabilities, dosing advice, or product rankings. A well-known ingredient can still receive a lower tier when evidence is limited or mixed.

Technical terms are translated into user-friendly language without adding conclusions that were not present in the papers. We prefer wording such as “studies observed this signal” over “this works.”