Skip to main content
Methodology

How We Evaluate Evidence

No cherry-picking. No hype. Here's exactly how we decide what makes it into Avaneuro—and what doesn't.

The problem with health content

Most parenting advice falls into two camps: oversimplified takeaways that strip away nuance, or academic papers that require a PhD to parse. Neither serves parents who want to make informed decisions.

We take a different approach. For each topic, we start with systematic reviews and meta-analyses when they exist. Then we dig into the primary studies—sample sizes, methodology, funding sources, replication status. We look for converging evidence across different research groups and populations.

When the evidence is strong, we say so. When it's preliminary or conflicting, we say that too. You get the full picture, not a sanitized summary.

Research principles

The standards we hold ourselves to.

Primary Sources

We read the actual studies—not press releases, not blog summaries. Every claim links to its source.

Effect Sizes Matter

Statistical significance isn't enough. We evaluate whether effects are clinically meaningful.

Conflicts Disclosed

Industry-funded research isn't automatically dismissed, but funding sources are noted.

Updated Continuously

Research evolves. We revisit modules when new meta-analyses or significant studies emerge.

Evidence ratings explained

Every recommendation in Avaneuro carries an evidence rating. Here's what each level means.

Strong

Multiple RCTs, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews with consistent findings. Replicated across populations.

Example: Breastfeeding benefits for immune development

Moderate

Well-designed cohort studies, single large RCTs, or meta-analyses with some heterogeneity.

Example: Omega-3 fatty acids and cognitive development

Emerging

Promising preliminary research, mechanistic plausibility, but limited human trials or replication.

Example: Specific probiotic strains for neurodevelopment

Experimental

Early-stage research, animal studies, or theoretical frameworks awaiting human validation.

Example: Novel circadian interventions in infants

What we don't do

Cite studies we haven't read
Present preliminary findings as established fact
Hide uncertainty to sound more authoritative
Recommend interventions without discussing tradeoffs
Ignore research that contradicts our conclusions

How citations appear

Every factual claim links directly to its source. Here's what that looks like in practice:

Newborns spend approximately 50% of their sleep time in active (REM) sleep, compared to only 20-25% for adults. This high proportion serves critical developmental purposes—REM sleep is when the brain consolidates learning and supports explosive neural development.

Source: Roffwarg HP, Muzio JN, Dement WC. Ontogenetic development of the human sleep-dream cycle. Science. 1966. PMID: 17779492

See the evidence yourself

Browse our modules and check the citations. Every claim is traceable. Every recommendation is justified.