Methodology

Last reviewed: July 2026 · Reviewed by Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, Founder, Biohack Blueprint

This page describes the systematic process we use to research, write, and review every supplement article on Biohack Blueprint. Our methodology is designed to produce content that is clinically rigorous, transparently sourced, and useful to readers making real supplementation decisions.

The rules that govern authorship, review, citation, and correction are set out separately on our Editorial Standards page. This page is the "how we do the work" companion to that "what we commit to" document.

1. Literature search and selection

For each supplement, we conduct a structured literature search using the following databases:

• PubMed / MEDLINE — primary source for biomedical literature.
• Google Scholar — for broader coverage including preprints and conference proceedings.
• Cochrane Library — for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• ClinicalTrials.gov — for registered trials and their results.

We prioritise evidence in the following order:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of human RCTs.
2. Individual human RCTs (randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled).
3. Non-randomised human studies (cohort, case-control).
4. Preclinical studies (animal models, cell culture).
5. Mechanistic reasoning.

We explicitly label the evidence level of every claim we make. When only preclinical data exists, we state this clearly and do not imply clinical efficacy. Where a study is a preprint — a paper posted publicly but not yet peer-reviewed — we flag that fact in the body of the article at the point the claim is made, not only in the reference list.

2. Product assessment framework

Each product is assessed across standard dimensions, each of which receives its own dedicated posts within the supplement's content cluster:

1. Mechanism of action — how does the compound work at a molecular and cellular level?
2. Evidence and clinical trials — what does the human trial data show, and how strong is the evidence?
3. Dosing and bioavailability — what doses were used in trials, and what form optimises absorption?
4. Safety, side effects, and interactions — what are the known risks, and which medications interact?
5. Benefits and use cases — who benefits most, and under what conditions?
6. Comparison with alternatives — how does this product compare to competing brands?
7. Manufacturer claims assessment — where do the brand's own claims align with the published evidence, and where do they overstate it?
8. FAQ — common reader questions, answered with cited evidence.

Where the manufacturer's default dose diverges from the doses used in published human trials, we say so directly and explain the divergence. Dose–trial mismatch is one of the most common and most important editorial findings in this catalogue, and we treat it as a first-order editorial concern rather than a caveat.

3. Writing standards

All articles are written by a named physician author who follows these principles:

• Accuracy over persuasion — we describe what the evidence shows, not what we wish it showed.
• Appropriate certainty — we match the strength of our language to the strength of the evidence ("may," "suggests," "has been shown to" are not interchangeable).
• Full context — we include study limitations, conflicting findings, and alternative interpretations, at the same hierarchy as the primary finding rather than as a buried caveat.
• Practical utility — we provide actionable information (specific doses, timing, form, interactions) rather than vague generalities.
• Inline citations — every factual claim links to its source within the text, not only in a separate bibliography.

Our primary author is Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, whose clinical background and editorial approach are described on our About page.

4. Medical review process

Before publication, every article undergoes independent review by a member of our Medical Advisory Board. The reviewer:

• Verifies that cited studies support the claims made.
• Checks dosing recommendations against published evidence.
• Identifies safety concerns or drug interactions that may have been omitted.
• Flags language that overstates the evidence.
• Ensures the article fairly represents both positive and negative findings.

Reviewer assignment is decided by subject-matter fit. Dr. Abdulla Mostafa reviews neuroscience, cognitive, and neurological content. Dr. Amr Nassar reviews surgical, cardiometabolic, musculoskeletal, and general internal medicine content. Articles that cross both domains may carry both bylines.

The reviewer's name and credentials appear on the published article. This accountability mechanism ensures that no single author's perspective goes unchecked.

5. Independence from commercial relationships

The methodology above applies to every article without exception. Reviews of DoNotAge products — the brand with which we hold an affiliate relationship — are researched, written, and reviewed against the same standards as any comparison article that names a competing brand. Neither the search, the assessment framework, the writing standards, nor the review process is adjusted for a product covered by our affiliate arrangement.

Where the evidence does not support a manufacturer claim, we say so — including when the manufacturer is DoNotAge. Our full commercial framework is set out on our Affiliate Disclosure and Partnership page.

6. Ongoing updates

Published articles are not static. We monitor the literature for significant new evidence and update articles when:

• A major new human trial is published.
• A safety signal or interaction is identified.
• A product formulation changes.
• A systematic review or meta-analysis revises the evidence base.

Material changes are dated at the top of the article. Minor corrections (typos, formatting) are made silently. Our full corrections process is documented in our Editorial Standards.

To report an error, or to alert us to new evidence that may warrant an article update, please get in touch.