Methodology

NADFaq is built for readers who require traceable sourcing and honest uncertainty — clinicians, researchers, serious readers, and anyone auditing claims about NAD+. This page documents the framework that every reference article, research summary, and benefit review is built on.

Evidence grading

Every benefit claim is tagged with one of four evidence levels. These reflect human trial quality, sample size, reproducibility, and mechanistic plausibility.

• Strong. Multiple well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans with consistent effects and plausible mechanism.
• Moderate. At least one well-conducted human RCT with supportive mechanistic work in humans or animal models.
• Emerging. Early-phase human trials (Phase 1/2), open label or small cohort, with plausible mechanism. Direction is suggestive but not conclusive.
• Preclinical. Supported by rodent, organoid, or cell work only. No human data yet, or only observational correlations.

Citation requirements

Every empirical claim cites at least one peer-reviewed source. Primary research (original clinical trials) is preferred over secondary sources (reviews). PubMed IDs (PMIDs) and DOIs are included where available so readers can navigate directly to the original paper.

When a secondary source is summarized, the review is cited alongside the two or three most relevant primary studies it covers — so readers can assess whether the review is representative.

Editorial review

Every piece is drafted by a named contributor and reviewed by at least one additional contributor with relevant credentials (PhD, MD, PharmD, or equivalent research experience) before publication. Reviewers check:

1. Are the cited studies accurately represented?
2. Is the strength of evidence appropriately graded?
3. Are confounders and limitations disclosed?
4. Is the language honest about uncertainty?

Updates and corrections

NAD+ research moves quickly. Every article carries a last-reviewed date and is re-reviewed at minimum annually. When new research changes an assessment, the piece is updated in place and the change is noted. For major reversals, a dedicated post explains the shift and links to the updated reference.

Spot a factual error? Email editorial@nadfaq.com.

What is excluded

NADFaq does not cite, summarize, or link to:

• Non-peer-reviewed preprints as primary evidence (they may be noted as emerging signal with explicit labeling).
• Industry-commissioned studies that have not been independently reproduced.
• Testimonials, anecdotal reports, or self-report survey data as evidence for clinical claims.