Source before summary
A conclusion is only useful when you can inspect what supports it. We keep studies, claims, populations, and outcomes connected.
PI / AboutPanacea Index / About
Evidence should be usable, not oversimplified
Better decisions begin with a better view of the evidence.
Panacea Index is a research interface for supplements: built to connect claims to studies, show where findings agree, and keep uncertainty in the frame.
See how the evidence is handledWhy we exist
The supplement aisle moves faster than the research can be read.
Scientific evidence is distributed across papers, described in inconsistent language, and often reduced online to a binary verdict. That makes careful comparison unnecessarily difficult.
Panacea Index exists to make that body of research navigable. The goal is not to manufacture certainty; it is to make the available signal, context, and gaps easier to inspect.
What the platform does
From literature to legibility.
A research layer between a broad health question and the papers needed to evaluate it.
01
Map
Organize a fragmented literature
Supplement names, research terms, health outcomes, and study populations are normalized so related evidence can be examined together.
02
Compare
Separate signal from volume
Study count alone is not consensus. We preserve direction, design, quality, and disagreement so a large pile of papers is not mistaken for certainty.
03
Trace
Keep the path back to evidence
Research summaries are designed as an entry point. The underlying study context remains available for scrutiny and deeper reading.
The boundary matters
What Panacea is
- A way to navigate supplement evidence by claim and outcome
- A comparison layer for study direction, strength, and context
- A starting point for better-informed questions
What Panacea is not
- Medical advice, diagnosis, or an individualized treatment plan
- A guarantee that an intervention is safe or effective for you
- A replacement for reading research or consulting a clinician
Working principles
Specific before sweeping
“Does it work?” is rarely one question. We organize evidence around a particular intervention, outcome, and population.
Uncertainty stays visible
Mixed findings, small evidence bases, indirect studies, and missing data are part of the answer—not details to hide.
Software assists; sources decide
Automation helps structure a large literature. It does not turn weak research into strong evidence or replace expert judgment.
Our method