Longevity is the most over-promised corner of health: molecules that worked in mice, supplements sold on a single study, headlines that race ahead of the data. Because of that, we hold every answer to a high bar and show you how we got there. This page explains how an article on TheLongevityGPT is researched, how we grade the strength of the human evidence, and how it is reviewed before you read it.

How we research

We start from primary literature, not from press releases or other blogs. We read the underlying studies on PubMed, weight named human trials over animal and in-vitro work, and lean on systematic reviews and meta-analyses where they exist. We draw on findings from the NIH and peer-reviewed journals, and we trace every figure back to its source. We do not invent statistics, lifespan numbers, or efficacy claims, and we are careful to separate what was shown in people from what was only shown in a dish or a mouse.

How we grade evidence

In longevity especially, the kind of evidence is the whole story, so we state it explicitly. We grade every claim against clear tiers and tell you which one applies:

  • Strong human evidence. Multiple well-run human trials, or a systematic review, pointing the same way.
  • Mixed or limited. Some human data, but small, short, or conflicting, so the answer is "promising but unproven."
  • Preliminary or animal/lab only. Mechanism, mouse, or cell findings that have not been shown to extend health or lifespan in people.

We do not present preliminary findings as settled. A compound that extends lifespan in mice is not proven in humans, and we say so. Where the strongest evidence sits with the unglamorous basics (sleep, training, and diet) rather than with a supplement, we weight our answer that way.

How articles are reviewed

Every article is written, fact-checked, and reviewed in-house by the TheLongevityGPT Editorial Team against the standards above before it is published. Each claim is traceable to a cited primary source, and we link those sources so you can check them yourself. A reviewer confirms that the mechanism is described accurately, the evidence grade matches what the research supports, and no claim (least of all a lifespan or healthspan claim) has been stretched beyond it. If a piece cannot meet that bar, it does not publish.

On medical review

To be transparent: our articles are researched, written, and reviewed by the editorial team against the standards above. This site is educational and is not a substitute for personalized medical advice. We do not list a named external medical reviewer, and we will never invent or imply a credential we do not have. Stating this plainly is itself part of how we keep your trust. Several longevity compounds are experimental, with limited long-term human safety data, so for diagnosis, treatment, or advice about your specific situation, especially before starting a new supplement, please consult a qualified doctor or pharmacist. See our medical disclaimer for more.

Corrections & updates

Longevity research moves quickly, and early findings are often revised or overturned. When we find an error, we correct it promptly. We update articles as the human evidence matures, and every article shows a published or updated date so you always know how current it is. If you spot something that looks wrong, we want to hear about it.

For the principles behind all of this, see our editorial standards.