Take the hype out of science headlines.

Paste a link to a health or science article. deHype checks the headline against the underlying evidence and shows what the study actually supports.

Original source Overclaim check Evidence grade

What deHype checks

We compare the headline with what the study actually shows.

Many science stories are based on real studies but make the findings sound more certain, more human-relevant or more actionable than they are.

Find the original source

We look beyond the article to the press release, paper and underlying evidence.

Check the headline

We compare what the article implies with what the study actually found.

Rate the strength of the evidence

We show whether the evidence comes from cells, animals, biomarkers, human studies or reviews.

Clear verdict

A plain-English evidence grade, key caveats and a safer interpretation.

Example deHype Evidence Report

How deHype breaks down a headline.

See how a deHype report traces a claim back to the evidence, checks what was actually shown, and explains what the headline gets right or wrong.

Grade C Source 78% Not actionable Mechanistic evidence

“Simple supplement greatly reduces Alzheimer’s damage”

deHype interpretation: interesting early-stage biology, but the public framing implies more patient relevance than the evidence can yet support.

Report source URL scitechdaily.com https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-identify-simple-supplement-that-greatly-reduces-alzheimers-damage/

Final

Overstated

Short verdict

Some evidence supports a biological signal, but the headline moves beyond what has been shown in people.

Source Match

Article and source trail are identifiable.

Evidence Level

Early biological evidence; no direct patient outcome trial.

Claim Match

The wording implies stronger clinical certainty than shown.

Source chain: article → press release → paper → human evidence

News article

SciTechDaily coverage

Public headline being checked

Matched

Press release

Institutional release

Media framing compared

Matched

Primary paper

Original evidence

Study type and outcomes checked

Matched

Human evidence

No direct outcome trial

Clinical relevance not proven

Not found

What the study actually did

The relevant evidence appears to involve Alzheimer’s-related biological pathways rather than a trial showing improved memory, reduced dementia incidence or better patient outcomes.

Claim audit

Article implies

A simple supplement greatly reduces Alzheimer’s damage.

Evidence supports

A biological or pathology-related signal in early evidence.

Overstated

Article implies

Readers may infer it is ready to try.

Evidence supports

No demonstrated prevention or treatment effect in humans from this evidence trail.

Needs caveat

Caveats the article should make clearer

No human outcome dataNo direct evidence of reduced dementia incidence, slower decline or improved function.

Biology may not mean benefitChanging a disease marker does not automatically mean a person feels or functions better.

Safer headline

Early research suggests a supplement-related pathway may affect Alzheimer’s biology in models.

Clinical actionability: not directly actionable

Interesting science, but not enough to change personal or clinical decisions.

The value is not just the verdict — it is the evidence trail behind it.Full reports include source notes, confidence scoring, safer wording, caveats and a shareable format.

Check a headline

Final grade

See the verdict at a glance. Understand whether the headline is supported, overstated or misleading.

Source chain

Follow the claim back to source. See how the story moves from headline to original evidence.

Claim audit

Compare claim vs evidence. We separate what the headline implies from what the study actually shows.

Study type

Check the strength of the evidence. See whether it is human, animal, lab, review or observational.

Caveats

Spot the missing context. Identify uncertainty, weak points, limitations and what readers should not assume.

Safer takeaway

Get the less-hyped version. A plain-English interpretation of what the evidence reasonably supports.

Free versus full

Free quick check. Full report when it matters.

The free check gives a quick first view. The full report is for claims you want to understand properly, save, share or cite.

Free quick check

Quick provisional verdict
Main claim identified
Likely evidence type
Key caveat
Option to upgrade to a full report

Full deHype Report

Deeper source tracing
Claim-by-claim breakdown
Evidence grade with reasoning
References, caveats and safer wording
Shareable/exportable report

Method

Not just true or false. A careful evidence check.

deHype is sceptical without being sensational. It does not simply label claims true or false. It asks whether the public claim is supported by the underlying evidence, how strong that evidence is, and what caveats the reader needs before trusting it.

Beyond true or falseClaims are judged by evidence strength, uncertainty and relevance.

Human evidence is separatedAnimal, cell and biomarker findings are not treated as proven patient benefit.

Exaggerated claims are flaggedCausality, certainty and practical relevance are checked explicitly.

Sources stay visibleThe trail from article to underlying evidence is central to the report.

Explore

Explore reports, articles, topics and guides.

Browse published checks, evidence briefings, topic hubs and short guides to help interpret science and health claims.

ReportsPublished checks of science and health headlines. TopicsCancer, dementia, heart health, weight loss, mental health, diet, supplements and more. ArticlesLonger evidence briefings on recurring claim traps and study interpretation. GuidesLearn how to read science and health headlines more critically.

Try it

Take the hype out of the next claim you read.

Start with a free quick check. When a claim matters, upgrade to a deeper referenced report.

deHype it