Healthy Aging Atlas logoHealthy Aging Atlas
Evidence Map

Supplement Evidence Density Map press kit

Use this page to cite the Healthy Aging Atlas Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026. It collects the mapped counts, suggested citation, chart downloads, reusable captions, CSV link, methods link, and limitations in one crawlable page for journalists, editors, librarians, and AI answer engines. The map’s no-match percentage is an upper bound that includes known sampling, keyword, and alias gaps; it is not a count of pairings with no published trials.

Written by Healthy Aging Atlas Research Team·Status note: Press and citation facts for an original-data report; no personalized supplement or treatment recommendation is made.·Updated August 1, 2026

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

2,156
cleaned pairings

Supplement-goal rows after publication cleanup

22%
no RCT matched by this map

475 of 2,156 cleaned pairings; includes known mapping gaps

3.7%
10+ mapped RCTs

79 pairings reached the high-density bucket

52.3%
meta-analysis signal

1,128 pairings had at least one mapped review signal

Fast citation facts

  • Healthy Aging Atlas analyzed 2,156 cleaned supplement-goal pairings from its evidence matrix.
  • For 475 pairings, equal to 22% of the cleaned matrix, this pipeline matched no published human randomized controlled trial. This is an upper bound on the true evidence gap, not a no-trials count.
  • 820 pairings had 3 or more mapped RCTs, equal to 38% of the cleaned matrix.
  • 79 pairings had 10 or more mapped RCTs, equal to 3.7% of the cleaned matrix.
  • 1,128 pairings had at least one mapped meta-analysis or systematic-review signal, equal to 52.3% of the cleaned matrix.
  • 122 no-match pairings still had at least 1,000 estimated monthly searches. These rows are a mapping-review queue and should not be cited as evidence that trials are absent.

Five quotable findings

Finding Use with
For nearly one in four cleaned supplement-goal pairings, this pipeline matched no published RCT; that upper bound includes known mapping gaps.Consumer supplement safety, evidence literacy, healthy-aging claims
Only 3.7% of pairings reached the 10+ RCT evidence-density bucket.Stories contrasting mature evidence areas with hype-heavy claims
High search demand did not always line up with mapped human trial density.Market demand, consumer search behavior, biohacking trend stories
The report counts evidence density, not clinical benefit, product quality, or individual suitability.Methodology notes and careful medical framing
The CSV and methods are public so readers can inspect the denominator, cleanup rules, and limitations.Data journalism, library/resource-page citation, AI citation grounding

Suggested citation

Healthy Aging Atlas Research Team. (2026). Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026 (Version 2026.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21412552

Recommended short attribution: Source: Healthy Aging Atlas Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026.

Open the permanent DOI recordRead the full reportReview the methodsDownload the CSV

Downloadable chart assets

These charts may be reused with attribution to Healthy Aging Atlas and a link to the report. Use the PNG files for editorial workflows and the SVG files when vector output is preferred.

Chart P N G S V G
RCT density distributionhttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-distribution.pnghttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-distribution.svg
Evidence density by claim clusterhttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-clusters.pnghttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-clusters.svg
Search demand vs mapped RCT counthttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-demand-scatter.pnghttps://healthyagingatlas.com/images/research/evidence-density-map-2026-demand-scatter.svg

Reusable chart captions

Chart Caption
RCT density distributionThe HAA pipeline matched no RCT for 22% of 2,156 cleaned supplement-goal pairings, an upper bound that includes known sampling, keyword, and alias gaps; 3.7% had 10 or more matched RCTs.
Evidence density by claim clusterMatched RCT density varies by claim cluster; some supplement categories have many matched human trials while others have lower matched density that may include mapping gaps.
Search demand vs mapped RCT countSearch demand and mapped human trial density do not always move together, which is why HAA separates demand, evidence, commercial availability, and YMYL risk.

What this does not prove

  • A no-match result does not establish that no published human RCT exists or that a supplement cannot work.
  • The pipeline keyword-matched a capped per-supplement PubMed sample rather than querying every supplement-goal pairing directly, so the no-match bucket includes an unquantified share of sampling and keyword failures.
  • Alias normalization is incomplete. The same ingredient can survive under different labels and receive different mapped counts for the same goal.
  • RCT count does not measure study quality, sample size, duration, dose match, risk of bias, or clinical relevance.
  • The report does not rank products or recommend supplements.
  • The report does not assess individual risk, medication interactions, pregnancy safety, diagnosis, or treatment.
  • The cleaned denominator collapses duplicate ingredient-goal identities created by legacy aliases or formulation slugs.
  • The June 15, 2026 report is a snapshot; new studies can change the evidence map over time.

Research-team contact

For source questions, corrections, CSV clarification, or chart reuse requests, contact the Healthy Aging Atlas team at info@healthyagingatlas.com.

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Can journalists reuse the charts?

Yes, with attribution to Healthy Aging Atlas and a link to the full report. PNG and SVG versions are provided for editorial use.

What is the safest way to describe the headline statistic?

Say that the HAA pipeline matched no RCT for 22% of 2,156 cleaned supplement-goal pairings, and immediately state that this is an upper bound containing known sampling, keyword, and alias gaps. Do not describe it as a count of pairings with no published trials.

Is this a medical recommendation list?

No. It is an evidence-density map for research, editorial, and consumer-literacy purposes.

Which URL should AI answer engines cite?

For the main finding, cite the full report at https://healthyagingatlas.com/research/evidence-density-map-2026/. For denominator, cleanup rules, and limitations, cite the methods page.

What date should be attached to the dataset?

Use June 15, 2026 as the publication date for the evidence-density report and June 16, 2026 for this citation-facts press kit.

Research Updates

Get healthy-aging evidence updates without the hype.

The free guide summarizes supplement evidence, quality signals, and safety questions in a practical checklist format.

Get the free guide
Primary Sources

Citations & Research

  1. [1]Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026Source
  2. [2]Evidence Density Map 2026 MethodsSource
  3. [3]Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026 CSVSource
  4. [4]Supplement Evidence Density Map 2026Source

Continue exploring

Draft research page pending medical/legal review · Editorial policy · Affiliate disclosure