Editorial standards: how we research, write & review

Brain-health information is only worth trusting if it's honest about what the evidence does and doesn't show. This page sets out exactly how we work: we build on peer-reviewed research, we cite our sources, we frame everything as risk reduction (never prevention or cure), and we say "this doesn't work" when that's what the evidence says — even when a more exciting claim would sell better. Here's the whole standard, in plain terms.

Who writes Solenna

Solenna is written by Viktor Stevanovic, who built it, and operated by Solvion Solutions, a sole proprietorship based in Sweden. There is no team: it is one person, and you should know that before you weigh anything on this site. Just as importantly, here is what he is not — not a physician, not a clinician, not a researcher. Solenna has no medical reviewer yet; when it does, that person will be named here. What is claimed instead is narrower and checkable: every factual statement is written against the primary literature, every source is named so you can read it yourself, and where the evidence is weak or contested it says so. Content is researched and written drawing directly on primary scientific literature and the summaries of leading health bodies. Solenna is an educational brain-health tool — not medical care. It does not diagnose, and using it does not create a doctor–patient relationship. For anything about your own health, we point you to a qualified professional.

Where our information comes from

We prioritise the strongest available evidence, and we're explicit about how strong it is:

• Primary research first. We build on peer-reviewed studies — randomised controlled trials, large longitudinal cohorts, systematic reviews and meta-analyses — and on consensus reports such as the Lancet Commission on dementia, the National Institute on Aging, and major medical centres. We name the study, year and journal so you can check it yourself.
• We grade the evidence honestly. "Strong," "moderate," "emerging" and "mixed" mean different things, and we say which one applies. When a well-run trial contradicts a popular belief — as the 2023 MIND-diet trial did, or the ginkgo GEM trial — we report the inconvenient result, not just the hopeful one.
• Association is not causation. Most risk-factor evidence is observational. We say "linked to" or "associated with" when that's what a study shows, and reserve stronger language for when trials support it.
• We don't invent evidence. No fabricated statistics, no made-up studies, no invented quotes or reviews, and no borrowed authority (we don't imply endorsements or "as seen on" credentials we don't have).

Our claims pledge

Because this is health information, the words matter. Our pledge, in plain terms:

• We say reduce risk, lower risk, delay onset, and may help.
• We never say prevent, cure, treat, reverse, or diagnose, and we never promise a guaranteed outcome.
• Our risk profile is an educational map of your modifiable factors — not a diagnosis, a prediction, or a medical device. We're candid that validated dementia risk scores only modestly predict individual outcomes.
• We don't use fear or personal-attribute framing. We won't tell you that you "have" a problem — we help you understand the factors you can act on.

Independence

We're a subscription product, not an affiliate storefront, and that shapes what we can say freely. We take no commissions from supplements, tests, drugs or devices, so nothing in our content is steering you toward a product for our benefit. That's why we can publish honest myth-busters — that most "brain supplements" lack good evidence, or that commercial brain-training games mostly train the game — without a conflict of interest pulling the other way.

Accuracy, dating & corrections

Every article carries a date and is reviewed against current research. Science moves — the Lancet Commission itself went from 12 modifiable factors to 14 in 2024 — so we update pieces when the evidence changes rather than letting them go stale. If you spot an error or something that's out of date, we want to know: email hello@solenna.io and we'll review and correct it.

Medical review

In the interest of being straight with you: our content is currently written and edited in-house, grounded in the primary sources we cite. We are actively working to add independent review by a qualified healthcare professional, and when a piece has been reviewed by a named clinician we will say so on that page. We would rather tell you the honest state of our review process than imply oversight we don't yet have.

Questions

Anything about how we work — sourcing, a specific claim, a correction — reach us at hello@solenna.io. See also the science behind Solenna and our Medical Disclaimer.

This page describes our editorial process and is not medical advice. Solenna provides educational, risk-reduction information and is not a medical diagnosis, treatment, or device. It does not prevent, treat, or cure Alzheimer's disease or any form of dementia; individual results vary and no outcome is guaranteed. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional about your personal health.