Our Evidence Standard
Where the facts on this site come from, how much weight each kind of evidence gets, and what the five evidence ratings mean.
What this site does not do
It does not diagnose anything. It does not personalize to your individual data or history. It does not replace a clinician. It does not predict your individual health outcomes. And it does not give advice: it reports what research found, never what to do about it.
How we handle sources
Every factual claim about research on this site traces back to a real, named source: a specific study, linked, that you can go read yourself, never a vague appeal to unnamed research or unnamed authority. When a claim matters, we name the kind of evidence behind it, because not all evidence carries the same weight.
Here is the order we trust it in, strongest first:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysesThe strongest signal. Many studies, pooled and weighed together.
- Individual randomized controlled trialsA real experiment with a control group. Strong, but one study is still one study.
- Validation studies against a reference standardA device tested against an ECG, arterial blood, a sleep lab or a lab gas analyzer. This is the evidence for whether a device measures accurately, which a trial does not answer. Which reference it was tested against, and in how many people, matter as much as the design.
- Prospective cohort and observational studiesUseful for spotting patterns, but they show association, not cause.
- Mechanistic and animal studiesExplain how something might work. A finding in mice is not a finding in people.
- Expert bodies and clinical guidelinesContext and consensus, cited as such, such as a clinical normal range.
- Manufacturer documentationThe primary source for how a device calculates a feature. Never evidence that the feature is accurate.
We also read what people are saying in communities, forums, and comment threads. But that tells us what people are asking and experiencing, not what is true. We never treat a popular belief as evidence. We treat it as the question worth answering.
The rules we hold ourselves to
Claims match the evidence
If the research found a correlation, we do not write it as cause. If one study found something, we do not call it settled. If the evidence is mixed, we say it is mixed, and we say so plainly rather than hiding it in a hedge. How much weight a finding can actually bear should always be clear from how we've written about it.
Fact and interpretation stay separate
What a study found is one thing. What we think it might mean is another. We keep those visibly apart, so you are never left guessing whether you are reading a result or our reading of it.
We never give advice
You will not find "take this" or "stop doing that" here. We report what the research found and what happened to the people in the studies. What you do with your own body, your own medication, your own health, is a conversation for you and your doctor. We are a place to understand the question better before you have that conversation.
We keep it current
Health evidence moves. When new evidence changes the picture, the article is updated, and a correction that changes a finding is dated on the page.
What the evidence badge at the top of every article means
You will see a small badge at the top of every article (Established, Emerging, Uncertain, Insufficient, or Unsupported) linking straight to the specific Research Desk claim behind that article. Every one of these words has one fixed meaning, computed the same way every time from the actual studies behind that claim, never judged case by case:
- EstablishedStrong, consistent evidence supports the claim. Two or more independent top-tier studies agree, and nothing contradicts them.
- EmergingEvidence currently favors the claim, but more confirmation is needed. Usually one strong study affirms it so far.
- UncertainEvidence is conflicting, inconsistent, or difficult to interpret. Strong studies disagree with each other.
- InsufficientToo little evidence exists to reach a conclusion. Not enough has been studied yet.
- UnsupportedExisting evidence does not support the claim. Multiple direct tests found nothing.
The KnowYourPrime Evidence Registry
Rated questions also have a permanent record in the KnowYourPrime Evidence Registry, each with a fixed finding ID such as KYP-ER-0001, a dated version history and a citation line. A Registry record always carries the same rating as its research desk, and any change to the rating or to the record's text is published as a new dated version.
Limits
What this site cannot do: it cannot determine whether a published study itself is correct. It reports what studies found; it does not re-run their statistics or re-verify their methodology from scratch. It cannot detect scientific fraud in a source paper. And it cannot guarantee that new evidence won't overturn a current rating: ratings are dated and revised as research changes, not fixed forever.
Corrections
When an error is found, in a source, in a claim, or in how something was worded, the page is corrected. Corrections that change a finding are dated on the page. To report one, write to corrections@knowyourprime.com.
Last updated: October 2026