Confidence Levels
Every Signal Record and every claim carries a confidence level. It answers one question: how strong is the scientific evidence behind this? Here is exactly what each level means.
What confidence measures
A BioSignal confidence level rates the strength and consistency of the evidence — not how large the benefit is. A modest, well-proven effect can be High confidence; a dramatic but unreplicated claim is not. See why confidence is not effectiveness for the full distinction. The same four-level scale is used everywhere confidence appears on the platform.
- Definition
- Well-supported by consistent, high-quality human evidence.
- What it means
- The conclusion is unlikely to reverse with the next study. This is about as settled as nutrition science gets.
- Typical evidence quality
- Multiple randomized human trials and one or more rigorous systematic reviews or meta-analyses, agreeing across independent groups.
- Typical number of studies
- Many independent human studies, usually synthesized in reviews — not a single result.
- How to interpret it
- You can act on this with reasonable assurance. Remember: High confidence describes the strength of the evidence, not the size of the effect.
- Definition
- Promising evidence that is still developing or context-dependent.
- What it means
- The finding is more likely true than not, but important gaps or inconsistencies remain.
- Typical evidence quality
- Some human trials support it, but they may be smaller, shorter, mixed in result, or limited to specific populations.
- Typical number of studies
- A handful of human studies pointing the same way, without the depth or consistency of a High rating.
- How to interpret it
- Reasonable to consider, with the understanding that future research could strengthen or temper the conclusion.
- Definition
- Early or sparse human evidence; conclusions remain uncertain.
- What it means
- There are signals worth noting, but not enough reviewed human evidence to be confident either way.
- Typical evidence quality
- Mostly mechanistic, preliminary, indirect, or animal evidence, with little or no strong human trial data.
- Typical number of studies
- Few human studies, often small or preliminary — or the case rests mainly on mechanism and preclinical work.
- How to interpret it
- Treat as an open question, not a recommendation. Interesting, but unproven in people.
- Definition
- Conflicting evidence or known risks that warrant care.
- What it means
- There is a specific reason for care — either credible risk information or evidence that meaningfully conflicts.
- Typical evidence quality
- Documented safety concerns, contraindications, or well-conducted studies that contradict the popular claim.
- Typical number of studies
- Variable — the flag is driven by the nature of the evidence (risk or conflict), not the count of studies.
- How to interpret it
- Slow down and read the safety section. This is where independent, transparent review matters most.
A note on reading the score
Confidence can move in either direction over time. As new trials are published, a Limited rating can rise to Moderate, or a Moderate finding can be tempered. That is the system working as intended — every such change is recorded in the record’s version history.
Spotted something unclear or out of date? We read every note.
Give feedback