Our Editorial Process
How we research, write, and maintain evidence-based health content you can trust.
Our Commitment to You
Health information affects real decisions about your body. We take that responsibility seriously. Every article on Designing Longevity goes through a rigorous research and review process. We cite our sources, label evidence strength honestly, and update content when new research emerges. If we get something wrong, we correct it transparently.
Our Research Process
Topic Identification
We identify topics where clear, accessible information is genuinely lacking. We prioritize areas where people are actively searching but finding conflicting or unreliable information.
- Analyze search trends and user questions
- Review what existing sources are saying
- Assess whether we can add genuine value
Literature Review
We conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, prioritizing high-quality evidence sources.
- Search PubMed for peer-reviewed studies
- Review Cochrane systematic reviews when available
- Examine FDA approval documents and clinical trial data
- Check ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing research
Evidence Assessment
We critically evaluate each source, weighing study quality, sample size, potential biases, and consistency of findings across multiple studies.
- Prioritize RCTs and meta-analyses
- Note study limitations and conflicts of interest
- Compare findings across independent research groups
- Distinguish human data from animal studies
Content Creation
We translate complex research into accessible language while maintaining accuracy. We write for intelligent non-experts, no jargon without explanation.
- Plain English explanations of mechanisms
- Clear evidence tier labeling (Strong/Moderate/Limited)
- Balanced presentation of benefits and risks
- Practical, actionable information
Review & Verification
Every piece undergoes internal review for accuracy, clarity, and completeness. We verify claims against primary sources.
- Fact-check all statistics and claims
- Verify links to primary sources
- Ensure evidence tiers accurately reflect the literature
- Review for potential misinterpretations
Publication & Updates
Content is published with clear dating and updated when new evidence emerges. We don't set it and forget it.
- All content displays last updated date
- Major studies trigger content review
- Corrections are made promptly and transparently
- Outdated content is either updated or removed
How We Evaluate Evidence
Not all research is created equal. We weight evidence based on study quality, size, and reproducibility:
Meta-analyses & Systematic Reviews
Pooled results from multiple high-quality trials. Strongest evidence.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
The gold standard for testing cause and effect in humans.
Large Observational Studies
Can show correlations but not causation. Useful for safety signals.
Well-Designed Animal Studies
ITP mouse trials are rigorous; single-lab studies less reliable.
Cell Culture / In Vitro Studies
Useful for understanding mechanisms; often don't translate to humans.
Case Reports / Anecdotes
Starting points for research, not evidence of efficacy.
For a more detailed explanation, see our Evidence Standards page.
Sources We Trust
PubMed / Peer-Reviewed Journals
Primary research published in reputable scientific and medical journals
New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Nature, Cell Metabolism
Cochrane Library
High-quality systematic reviews synthesizing multiple studies
Cochrane Reviews, Database of Systematic Reviews
FDA Documents
Drug approval packages with complete clinical trial data
FDA approval letters, prescribing information, advisory committee briefings
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry of ongoing and completed clinical studies
Trial protocols, interim results, safety reports
NIA Interventions Testing Program
The gold standard for longevity compound testing in mice
Multi-site lifespan studies with rigorous protocols
Independent Researchers & Experts
Scientists without financial conflicts discussing evidence publicly
Academic researchers, medical professionals, science communicators
What We Don't Do
We don't provide medical advice
We offer educational information to help you have better conversations with your doctor, not to replace those conversations.
We don't sell products or accept pay-to-rank
We don't sell supplements and don't take money from pharmaceutical companies. Some telehealth providers in our directory have an affiliate relationship with us (per-click or per-qualified-consult only, never per-prescription); affiliate relationships are disclosed on every listing card, and inclusion in the directory is independent of whether a provider pays us. The full compensation policy is on the provider vetting methodology page.
We don't overpromise
When evidence is limited, we say so. We clearly label speculative claims and don't present early research as proven fact.
Updates & Corrections
Science evolves. New studies are published, understanding changes, and occasionally we make mistakes. Here's how we handle it:
- Regular Reviews: We periodically review existing content, especially when major new studies are published.
- Clear Dating: Every page shows when it was last updated so you know how current the information is.
- Transparent Corrections: If we make a significant error, we correct it and note what was changed. We don't silently edit our way out of mistakes.
Found an Error?
If you spot an inaccuracy, outdated information, or something that needs clarification, we want to know. Our goal is accuracy above all else. Please reach out and we'll investigate promptly.
Want to learn more about how we evaluate specific claims?