References & Methodology - AMDAlliance.org

At AMD Alliance (https://www.amdalliance.org), we are committed to presenting health and aging-related information that is accurate, evidence-based, and responsibly interpreted. This page explains how we select scientific references and how research findings are evaluated and presented across the site.

Table of Contents

Purpose of This Page

The goal of our references and methodology framework is to:

Ensure transparency in how information is sourced
Clarify how scientific evidence is interpreted for educational use
Help readers understand the strengths and limitations of research findings

Our content is designed to inform, not to diagnose, treat, or replace professional medical care.

Types of Sources We Use

We prioritize high-quality scientific and medical sources, including:

Peer-reviewed human clinical trials
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Epidemiological and population-based studies
Consensus statements and clinical guidelines from recognized medical organizations
Reputable academic journals in medicine, biology, and aging research

When appropriate, authoritative textbooks or academic reviews may also be cited for foundational concepts.

Human Evidence First

As a guiding principle:

Human studies are prioritized whenever available
Animal or in-vitro research is included only for background or mechanistic context
Findings from non-human research are clearly labeled and not overstated

This approach reflects real-world relevance and minimizes misinterpretation of early-stage findings.

How Research Is Interpreted

Scientific findings are presented with attention to:

Study population characteristics (age, health status, sample size)
Study duration and design (observational vs interventional)
Primary outcomes measured
Reported benefits, neutral findings, and adverse effects
Limitations, confounders, and unanswered questions

We avoid drawing conclusions that go beyond what the evidence supports.

Research Compounds & Investigational Topics

When covering investigational compounds (such as peptides, SARMs, hormones, or other research chemicals):

Content is framed strictly in an educational and scientific context
Regulatory status and approval limitations are clearly stated
No recommendations for personal use, dosing, or sourcing are provided
Uncertainty and gaps in human evidence are emphasized

Mentions of compounds do not imply endorsement, safety, or efficacy.

Use of Statistics & Claims

Whenever possible:

Quantitative results are presented in relative or descriptive terms
Absolute risk and benefit are not exaggerated
Associations are not presented as proof of causation

Observational findings are clearly distinguished from randomized controlled trials.

Citations & Reference Presentation

References may be summarized rather than directly linked to:

Avoid misinterpretation by non-specialist readers
Focus on study relevance rather than technical detail
Maintain readability while preserving scientific integrity

Where summaries are provided, they reflect the original authors’ conclusions and reported limitations.

Updating & Review Process

Scientific knowledge evolves. Our content may be:

Reviewed periodically as new research emerges
Updated to reflect revised consensus or improved evidence
Corrected if inaccuracies or outdated interpretations are identified

Significant updates are made with care to preserve clarity and accuracy.

Reader Responsibility

Readers should understand that:

Research findings vary between individuals
Early-stage research does not guarantee clinical usefulness
Personal health decisions should always involve qualified healthcare professionals

AMD Alliance provides education, not medical advice.