How we evaluate evidence
Editorial & Research Standards
Zombie Cell Science is an educational resource focused on making emerging research easier to understand without overstating what the evidence proves.
Our editorial approach is built around a simple principle: the strength of a claim should match the strength of the evidence supporting it.
Our evidence hierarchy
Not all scientific evidence carries the same weight. When evaluating research, we consider the type, quality, size, and relevance of the available evidence.
- Systematic reviews and high-quality human evidence — especially when results are consistent across multiple studies.
- Randomized controlled human trials — particularly when they are well-designed, adequately powered, and independently replicated.
- Observational human studies — useful for identifying associations, but generally unable to prove cause and effect on their own.
- Early human studies — including pilot studies, small trials, safety studies, and early-stage clinical research.
- Animal studies — important for understanding biological mechanisms and generating hypotheses, but not proof that the same effects occur in humans.
- Laboratory and cell studies — valuable for exploring mechanisms, but among the earliest stages of evidence when considering human health outcomes.
How we use sources
We prioritize original and authoritative sources whenever possible, including peer-reviewed research indexed in PubMed, registered clinical trials such as ClinicalTrials.gov, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, government research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, and academic or scientific institutions.
Human evidence matters
Research in cellular senescence, senolytics, and longevity frequently begins in cells or animals before moving into human studies.
We do not treat laboratory or animal findings as proof of a human health benefit. When evidence comes from mice, cultured cells, or other preclinical models, we identify it as such.
Likewise, the existence of a clinical trial does not mean a treatment has been proven effective. We distinguish between a trial that is planned or underway and one that has published meaningful results.
How we describe emerging research
We avoid presenting promising findings as established facts. Terms such as may, potential, associated with, researchers are studying, and preliminary evidence are used when they accurately reflect the level of evidence.
Where evidence is uncertain, conflicting, limited, or based on small studies, we aim to make those limitations clear.
Scientific review
Zombie Cell Science’s research and educational content is reviewed with doctoral-level scientific oversight.
Our scientific advisor has a doctoral background in theoretical physics and reviews the evidence, scientific reasoning, and presentation of research used in our educational materials.
This scientific review is intended to support accuracy and evidence interpretation. It does not constitute medical review or individualized medical advice.
Corrections and updates
Scientific knowledge changes as new evidence becomes available. Articles may be reviewed and updated when new studies, clinical-trial results, safety information, or stronger evidence materially changes the understanding of a topic.
If an error is identified, our goal is to correct it rather than preserve an outdated statement.
Commercial relationships
Zombie Cell Science may use affiliate links or other commercial relationships to help support the site.
Commercial relationships do not determine how we interpret scientific evidence. When a financial relationship is relevant to a page or recommendation, it will be disclosed.
Educational purpose
Zombie Cell Science provides general educational information. It is not a medical practice and does not provide diagnosis, treatment, prescriptions, or individualized recommendations.
Readers should consult an appropriately qualified healthcare professional when making personal health decisions.
Our standard
We would rather describe promising evidence as preliminary than make a stronger claim than the research supports.
That standard applies whether a topic is popular, commercially valuable, or receiving significant attention in longevity research.