Every other platform asks you to trust a recommendation. We show you the score behind it — and rank your next move by it. Here's how the engine works, and the part we keep behind glass.
We pull human studies across longevity, metabolic and performance science — RCTs, cohorts, meta-analyses — and keep them current as new evidence lands.
Each is scored on quality, replication and independence from the people selling the thing. A glossy ad and a registered trial are not treated the same.
Evidence is grouped by the 12 Hallmarks of Aging (López-Otín, Cell 2023) — so a move is judged by the mechanism it actually targets.
Your data signature surfaces the hallmarks carrying your load first. Same evidence, re-sorted for you — that's the LIVAO Score.
Independence is the one most platforms quietly drop. It's the difference between "the science says" and "our supplier says."
We don't rank "supplements" against "habits" against "tests" — that's apples and oranges. We rank everything by the aging mechanism it moves. A CHF 4 habit that hits a hallmark you're loaded on beats a CHF 200 test that doesn't.
It's the same scientific backbone used in the field's most cited reviews — applied to your profile instead of a population average.
We'll happily show you a score, its inputs, and the studies behind it — radical transparency is the product. What we don't publish is the weighting model: exactly how quality, replication and independence combine, how the hallmark-matching reads your signature, and how the model re-weights as the cohort grows.
That's deliberate. A marketplace is a weekend clone. A scored evidence graph that gets sharper with every member who connects their data is not. The moat isn't any single study — it's the system, and the compounding data behind it.
Your score, its inputs, the cited studies and our honest caveats.
The weighting model, the matching logic, and how it learns across members.
Every connected signal sharpens the next member's ranking. Copycats start at zero.
Take fish oil. The marketing says "heart health." The largest trial (VITAL, n≈25,000) found the primary cardiovascular endpoint was null — hazard ratio 0.92, not significant. Only heart-attack risk specifically dropped, by about 28%. So in LIVAO, omega-3 scores well for one narrow thing and is honestly flagged for the rest.
No other store has an incentive to tell you that. We have no incentive not to. Our credibility is the entire asset.
Get early access →