Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring
The scoring rules reward auditable commercial information. They do not convert a supplement database into a clinical trial, tempting though that would be for certain marketers.
Source hierarchy
Official manufacturer pages are preferred for product specifications. Major retailer product pages are used when they expose a current product, dose, format or price that can be checked. Every row records its source type so readers can distinguish brand-originated specifications from retailer listings.
Transparency Score: 0–10
Points are awarded for verified fisetin dose, explicit serving information, container count, captured current price, third-party testing disclosure, visible COA, and manufacturing-quality disclosure. It measures how easy a product is to audit, not whether it produces a better biological outcome.
Fisetin Value Score: 1–10
The value score uses captured price per 100 mg of verified fisetin and normalizes the observed range logarithmically. It is shown only where both price and fisetin dose are available. Enhanced-delivery and multi-active products can therefore look expensive on a milligram basis even when their formulation philosophy is different, which is why value is never used as a standalone recommendation.
Evidence Match Score: 0–10
This score rewards a clear active amount, a focused formula, explicit serving information, and auditability. It estimates how directly the commercial product can be compared with ingredient-level research. It does not claim that a high score predicts efficacy.
Stack Complexity: 1–5
A focused single-ingredient product scores 1. Enhanced or liposomal products generally score 2. Multi-active and multi-senolytic formulas score higher. Complexity is descriptive: it can add convenience or complementary ingredients, but it also increases the number of assumptions required to interpret evidence on the finished formula.
Missing data
“Not captured” means the reviewed source did not give us enough information to populate the field at the time of the snapshot. It does not mean the manufacturer lacks testing, GMP practices or other quality controls. We leave uncertainty visible instead of quietly converting it into a yes or no.
Source hierarchy
Official manufacturer pages are preferred for current product specifications. Independent clinical literature is evaluated separately for evidence questions.
Snapshot dates
Product facts are time-sensitive. Records should be rechecked when formulas, prices, certifications, or availability change.
Field definitions
Dose refers to the stated active amount per serving where verified. Price is the captured one-time price unless otherwise noted. Testing and COA fields are recorded only when supported by the source.
Transparency scoring
Transparency is an editorial auditability metric and must not be interpreted as clinical efficacy.
Value scoring
Value is calculated only where dose and price are verified well enough to support a normalized cost comparison.
Evidence-match scoring
Evidence Match describes how cleanly the commercial formula maps to the thing studied. Complex blends generally require more caution.
Complexity scoring
Complexity is descriptive, not inherently positive or negative. More active ingredients increase the burden of proof.
Limits
Manufacturer pages can omit details, regional pricing can differ, and testing claims vary in quality. The methodology reduces uncertainty but cannot eliminate it.
Update trigger 1
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 2
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 3
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 4
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 5
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 6
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 7
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 8
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 9
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 10
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.
Update trigger 11
For Senolytic Database Methodology & Scoring, the conclusion should remain open to revision. New human studies, formula changes, updated COAs, price changes, and newly disclosed testing can all alter the commercial recommendation. The useful goal is not to create a permanent winner, but to make the comparison transparent enough that readers can see why the conclusion was reached and what evidence would change it.