About Abstraction Health
An evidence navigator. Not a doctor. Not medical advice.
Abstraction Health tracks what trusted health experts say about supplements — extracting specific claims from podcasts, videos, and transcripts — and compares those claims against published research evidence from PubMed.
The goal is transparency. We show you what was said, who said it, when and where, and how that claim compares to the peer-reviewed literature. We show evidence quality honestly. We show uncertainty where it exists.
The site is intentionally conservative: pages are strongest when they include both expert-source context and enough PubMed-linked research to evaluate the claim. Supplements with very thin, experimental, or mostly speculative evidence are kept out of the main public index until the coverage improves.
This is not medical advice. We are not a clinical tool. We do not diagnose conditions. We do not prescribe supplements or doses. Every health decision should involve a qualified healthcare provider.
Experts we track
Research sources
PubMed / NCBI E-utilities API. We prefer systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and RCTs in humans. Animal and mechanistic studies are included but ranked lower.
Supplements tracked
Magnesium · L-Theanine · Creatine · Ashwagandha · Fish Oil/Omega-3 · Vitamin D · Glycine · Taurine · Inositol · Melatonin · and 30+ more.
What we will never do
Diagnose you. Prescribe. Collect personal health data. Hide uncertainty. Recommend you stop taking medication. Claim certainty we don't have.
Methodology
We separate two things that are often mixed together: what an expert claimed, and what the published evidence can actually support. Claims are extracted from public source material, then compared against PubMed-indexed research with preference for human trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
Evidence labels are not recommendations. They are a shorthand for research depth and consistency. A strong label does not mean a supplement is right for you; an insufficient label does not mean a claim is false. It means the available evidence is limited for the specific claim being evaluated.
We avoid certainty theater. When research is mixed, low quality, animal-only, mechanistic, or missing, the page should say that plainly.
Evidence quality framework
Photo credits
David Sinclair photo by Editor5627, and Mark Hyman photo by YalMenashe — both licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Resized for display; no other changes.