Methodology

Body Signals summarises published, peer-reviewed health research in plain language. Our readers are Canadian and US adults who want to understand the current state of research on a health topic without needing a scientific background to parse the primary literature.

We are not a healthcare provider. We do not diagnose, prescribe, or offer personalised advice. We are a research digest: a publisher that identifies, evaluates, and communicates the strength of evidence behind health claims so that readers can make more informed decisions in consultation with their own healthcare providers.

Every claim on this site carries an A\u2013F evidence rating. These ratings represent our editorial judgement about the quality, consistency, and volume of published research supporting a given claim. They are assigned through a structured editorial process, not by algorithm, and they are subject to revision as new research emerges.

Evidence ratings are assigned through editorial judgement, not by algorithm. There is no formula that mechanically translates a set of studies into a letter grade. Instead, our editors consider several factors:

• Volume of evidence: How many studies exist? Are there meta-analyses or systematic reviews?
• Quality of study designs: Where do the supporting studies fall in our source hierarchy?
• Consistency of findings: Do studies converge on similar conclusions, or are results mixed and contradictory?
• Effect size and clinical significance: Is the observed effect meaningful in practical terms, or is it statistically significant but clinically trivial?
• Generalisability: Were studies conducted in diverse populations, or only in narrow demographic groups?
• Recency: Has the evidence been updated recently, or is it based on older studies that may not reflect current understanding?
• Risk of bias: Are there concerns about funding sources, conflicts of interest, methodological weaknesses, or selective reporting?

The final grade represents a holistic editorial judgement that weighs all of these factors. Borderline cases are noted in the research summary, and we err on the side of the more conservative rating when evidence is ambiguous.

We believe in being transparent about the inherent limitations of our rating system and our editorial process:

• Single-grade simplification. A single letter grade cannot capture the full nuance of a body of research. Some interventions may have strong evidence for one outcome but weak evidence for another. We address this in the narrative text of each research summary, but the letter grade is necessarily reductive.
• Research evolves. What we know today may be revised or overturned by future research. We update summaries on a rolling basis but cannot guarantee that every page reflects the absolute latest findings at the moment you read it.
• Publication bias. Published research skews toward positive findings. Studies showing null or negative results are less likely to be published. This means the evidence base may be systematically more optimistic than reality for some interventions.
• Generalisability limits. Many studies are conducted in narrow populations (e.g., young, healthy university students in Western countries). Findings may not apply equally across all ages, sexes, ethnicities, or health conditions.
• Editorial subjectivity. Despite our structured process, evidence rating involves judgement. Reasonable editors could disagree on borderline cases. We mitigate this through our review process and corrections policy, but we do not claim perfect objectivity.
• Scope constraints. We cannot cover every study on every topic. Our summaries focus on the most impactful and relevant research, which means some nuances and edge cases may not be represented.

Body Signals serves readers in both Canada and the United States. We cover both jurisdictions because health research is international, but healthcare systems, regulatory approvals, and clinical guidelines often differ between the two countries.

Where relevant, we note jurisdiction-specific differences \u2014 for example, when a supplement is regulated differently by Health Canada versus the FDA, or when clinical guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association differ from those of American specialty organisations.

Our evidence ratings are based on the global research literature and are not specific to either jurisdiction. However, the practical applicability of a given intervention may differ based on local availability, insurance coverage, and regulatory status.

At present, Body Signals has no financial conflicts of interest. We do not accept payment from pharmaceutical companies, supplement manufacturers, device makers, or any other commercial entity in exchange for coverage or ratings. We have no affiliate relationships, sponsorships, or advertising arrangements that could influence our editorial content.

We are committed to disclosing any conflicts of interest that may arise in the future \u2014 both at the organisational level and at the level of individual editors or contributors. Disclosure will appear on this page and on any affected content.

If you believe you have found a factual error, outdated information, or misrepresentation of published research on Body Signals, we want to hear from you. Accurate information depends on community vigilance as well as editorial diligence.

To report an error:

• Use the feedback widget on the affected page (preferred for minor issues)
• Email [email protected] with the page URL, the specific error, and (if possible) a link to the source that supports the correction
• Visit our contact page

All confirmed corrections are documented publicly in our Corrections Log.