We created AntiAgingBrain.com because brain health information deserves the same rigor as the science behind it. No hype, no affiliate-driven rankings, no cherry-picked studies — just honest, research-backed guidance.
The brain supplement market is flooded with exaggerated claims and pseudoscience. Consumers are left navigating a landscape where marketing budgets determine visibility — not evidence quality.
AntiAgingBrain.com exists to change that. Every supplement we review is evaluated against the published clinical literature — meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library.
We rate what the evidence actually shows, disclose when it's limited, and never recommend a product that isn't backed by meaningful human research. If the science changes, our ratings change with it.
Every claim rated against published peer-reviewed research
Full citations, disclosed affiliations, and open methodology
We downgrade ratings when new evidence warrants it
Affiliate commissions never influence our evidence ratings
No paid placements. No cherry-picked studies. Every rating follows the same rigorous four-step process.
We search PubMed, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries for all available human evidence — prioritizing meta-analyses and systematic reviews over isolated studies.
Each supplement gets a 5-tier evidence rating per claimed benefit. We separate what's proven from what's promising from what's purely speculative.
Content is reviewed by qualified health professionals for accuracy, appropriate context, and responsible health claims before publication.
Science moves fast. We monitor new publications and update our ratings as stronger evidence emerges — including downgrading when warranted.
| Rating | Label | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| ★★★★★ | Strong | Multiple meta-analyses or large, well-designed RCTs consistently confirm the benefit |
| ★★★★☆ | Good | Several RCTs with mostly positive results; at least one meta-analysis or systematic review |
| ★★★☆☆ | Moderate | Some clinical studies with positive signals, but results may be mixed or limited in scope |
| ★★☆☆☆ | Preliminary | Limited human studies — mostly small trials. Mechanisms are promising but more research is needed |
| ★☆☆☆☆ | Insufficient | Very limited or no human research. May have only animal/in-vitro data or conflicting results |
Every article is reviewed by qualified health professionals before publication to ensure accuracy, appropriate context, and responsible health claims.
Clinical expertise in cognitive aging, neuroprotection, and the neuroscience of supplement mechanisms.
Specializes in nutritional neuroscience, dietary interventions for brain health, and nutrient-drug interactions.
Expertise in supplement bioavailability, dosing protocols, safety profiles, and evidence-based nutraceutical research.
Every article cites primary sources — PubMed-indexed studies, Cochrane reviews, and meta-analyses. We never cite secondary blog sources as evidence.
We disclose every affiliate relationship. Commissions never influence our evidence ratings or which supplements we recommend.
If we get something wrong, we correct it publicly with a dated note. If new evidence contradicts our rating, we update it — even if that means downgrading a recommended product.
We provide educational information, not medical advice. We always recommend consulting a qualified healthcare provider before starting any supplement.
See which brain supplements are backed by real science — and which ones aren't worth your money.
View Our Rankings