Methodology

The Biohacking Index is a daily composite measure of public attention toward the culture of human optimization. It does not measure whether any protocol works. It measures how much collective attention a curated set of topics is receiving — and whether scientific interest is moving with that attention or lagging behind it.

The two-track model

Every tracked topic receives two independent scores, each normalised to a 0–100 scale across the tracking universe:

• Cultural momentum — how much public attention a topic is receiving. Composed of Google Trends search interest (35%), Reddit discussion volume and velocity (30%), YouTube upload and view activity (20%), and news media mentions (15%).
• Scientific momentum — how much research activity surrounds a topic, measured by publication frequency in the PubMed database over a trailing window.

The composite Index score weights cultural momentum at 70% and scientific momentum at 30%. Culture leads the weighting deliberately: this is a cultural intelligence product, not a research journal. But science carries enough weight that no topic can reach the top of the Index on pure buzz alone.

The gap

The difference between a topic's cultural score and its scientific score is the most editorially useful number the Index produces. Ratings on the Hype vs Science page are derived from it: a topic with a scientific score of 60 or above is rated science-backed; 40 and above, emerging evidence; below that, a gap of 50 or more points earns a pure hype rating and a gap of 25 or more is rated speculative.

The curated universe

The Index does not chase whatever is trending. It tracks a deliberately curated allowlist of topics — currently 67 terms across 13 sub-indexes spanning sleep, supplements, wearables, recovery, cognitive enhancement, nervous system regulation, longevity protocols, nutrition, metabolic health, AI health, peptides, cellular therapeutics, and fitness. Topics enter and exit the universe by editorial decision, not algorithm. That human curation is a feature: it is what keeps the Index a measured instrument rather than a mirror of internet noise.

Update cadence

Signals are collected and scored once daily by an automated pipeline. Scores shown on this site reflect the most recent completed collection run. If a data source is temporarily unavailable, its weight is redistributed across the remaining sources for that run and the site continues displaying the most recent complete data.

Limitations, stated plainly

• Attention is not evidence. A high cultural score means people are talking — nothing more.
• Publication counts are a blunt proxy for scientific merit. They measure activity, not quality or direction of findings.
• Public data sources carry their own biases and lags. Google Trends data, for example, is inherently delayed by one to two days.
• The tracking universe reflects editorial judgment. Topics not on the allowlist are invisible to the Index by design.

The Biohacking Index tracks public interest signals only. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice, and no score should be read as an endorsement of any protocol, product, or intervention.