ANABIOTICAHow we grade evidence.
Every rating answers one question: how confident should a reader be that the stated benefit is supported by the available evidence?
Last updated
Claims must lead back to evidence.
Each library article uses at least 5 relevant sources. We prioritize systematic reviews, randomized trials, major clinical guidelines, regulatory documents, and authoritative institutional sources. Citations sit beside the claims they support, including benefits and cautions.
What every review assesses
Clinical relevance
How directly the evidence measures meaningful outcomes in the people and use case being discussed.
Study quality
The rigor, size, duration, consistency, and independent replication of the available research.
Safety data
How well adverse effects, contraindications, interactions, and longer-term risks are characterized in humans.
The overall rating
The grade is editorial judgment, not a treatment recommendation, safety guarantee, or mechanical average. Strong trials can support an E rating when they fail to establish the claimed benefit.
Strong High confidence
Consistent, clinically meaningful support from multiple high-quality human studies, with enough safety evidence to understand the main tradeoffs.
Moderate Moderate confidence
Credible human evidence supports the intervention, but important limitations, inconsistency, or unanswered safety questions remain.
Emerging Emerging evidence
Early human findings are promising, but the evidence is limited, indirect, short-term, or not yet independently replicated.
Experimental Experimental
Evidence is primarily preclinical or exploratory, so benefits, dosing, and safety cannot yet be established for routine human use.
Insufficient Insufficient
Available evidence does not establish the claimed benefit. This can include well-designed studies with null or conflicting results.
Conservative interpretation
We distinguish mechanisms, associations, biomarkers, and clinical outcomes. Animal or cell findings are never presented as demonstrated human benefit.
Benefits and harms
Limitations, null results, interactions, contraindications, and safety signals receive the same attention as favorable findings.
Meaningful updates
Updated dates change only after substantive evidence or content changes—not cosmetic edits or attempts to make an article appear fresh.
Checks are visible, and reviews remain accountable.
Automated monitoring flags source links that cannot be reached, but it does not decide whether evidence is valid. Substantive source, claim, safety, and rating changes are recorded in the public change log. Completed evidence audits are also recorded internally, including reviews that require no published change. Change log.