Editorial Policy

Rankings are determined by the framework, not by the publisher

Every ranking decision on this site is anchored to our published 100-point Clinical Evaluation Framework. No app is ranked higher or lower than its framework score warrants because of business relationship, app popularity, or marketing pressure. If we genuinely cannot reach a defensible score, we say so and decline to rank rather than guess.

Sources for factual claims

• App pricing and features — verified against the app's official website or App Store/Play Store listing within the past 30 days before publication.
• Database sizes — sourced from the app publisher's public statements or third-party industry reports; we cite the source.
• Clinical and nutrition-science claims — sourced from peer-reviewed literature, cited by DOI where available.
• Evidence Grades — anchored to the published validation literature as it stands at the report date; updated as new evidence publishes.

What we will not publish

• Accuracy claims we cannot back with test data — "99% accurate" type claims that lack methodology.
• Sponsored placements — we accept no payment for ranking position or coverage.
• Comparative claims using language that exceeds the data — "X is the most accurate" requires test data; "X has a higher accuracy ceiling architecturally" is what we can defensibly claim before test data publishes.
• Medical advice — we publish information about apps and dietary assessment; we do not diagnose, treat, or replace clinical care.

How we handle errors

Substantive errors are corrected on the affected page with a dated note, and a record is kept on our corrections page.

Conflicts of interest

No editor or contributor on this site has a financial relationship with any evaluated app publisher. If this changes, the relationship will be disclosed on the affected pages.