Evidence Engine

Built for Dr. Henderson · Nutramax · Nutraceutical Science

Grade the strength of evidence behind a claim across a body of studies — transparently, and show what would raise the grade.

✎ Tried it? Share pilot feedback →

The Method · every weight published

How a pile of studies becomes a letter

There is no proprietary black box. The grade is four transparent steps over numbers you can see and change.

1 · Design weight

A randomized trial controls for confounders a petri dish cannot. Design is the biggest lever, so it scores ×1 to ×4.

×4

×3

×2

×1

RCT

Cohort

Observational

In-vitro

2 · Size factor = log₁₀(n + 10)

Bigger studies count more — but with diminishing returns. Going 50 → 500 matters more than 5,000 → 50,000.

1.30

1.78

2.04

2.71

3.00

3.70

4.70

100

500

1000

5000

50000

3 · Direction & consistency · 4 · Mass

Each study's weight = design × size, signed by its result (supports +1, mixed 0, null −1). Direction = the share of decided weight that supports the claim. Consistency = how unanimous the decided studies are. Mass = 1 − e^(−weight/12), so more and bigger studies saturate toward certainty. The score is 100 × direction × mass — and a lone study is capped below an A until someone replicates it.

Try it — weight of one study

DesignSample size n = 500

×4 (design) × 2.71 (size) = weight 10.83

An RCT raises the grade more than an in-vitro study

C+

starting body (56)

+ supporting RCT (n=1,000)C+ → B+ (+28)

+ supporting in-vitro (n=1)C+ → B− (+3)

Same starting evidence, same supporting result — the RCT moves the grade 9× as far, because design weight dominates.

← Back to the engine Verify a sealed grade →

Showcase demo for the America's Future 80th Anniversary Summit. Showcase · best home: LLC (commercial). Seeded with realistic sample data; runs payment-dark (no billing). Not a production system.