Dihexa
Dihexa is a synthetic angiotensin IV analog developed at Washington State University that potentiates HGF at the c-Met receptor to drive synaptogenesis. McCoy 2013 reported rat hippocampal synaptogenesis and Benoist 2011 reported aged-rat spatial memory rescue. Three foundational WSU papers were later retracted for data fabrication. Zero human trials. Gray-market only.
Dihexa scored 4.7 / 10 (โ ๏ธ Proceed with caution) on the BioHarmony scale as a Substance โ Research Compound.
What It Is
Dihexa (N-hexanoic-Tyr-Ile-(6) aminohexanoic amide) is a synthetic angiotensin IV analog developed at Washington State University in the Harding and Wright labs. It was designed as a metabolically stable peptide mimetic that potentiates hepatocyte growth factor signaling at the c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase, and it binds the AT4 receptor site on insulin-regulated aminopeptidase (IRAP). The downstream signal in rat hippocampal tissue is increased dendritic spine density and new synapse formation, which the originating lab described as synaptogenesis. Benoist 2011 reported spatial memory rescue in aged rats on the Morris water maze. McCoy 2013 reported synaptogenic activity in rat hippocampal slices.
Type: Research compound (angiotensin IV analog N-hexanoic-Tyr-Ile-(6) aminohexanoic amide; gray-market cognitive enhancer with preclinical data only).
Current status: Research compound only. Zero human clinical trials. Three foundational WSU papers were retracted for data fabrication, and the widely repeated claim that dihexa is "10 million times more potent than BDNF" originated from retracted comparisons across entirely different receptor systems. Not FDA-approved in any jurisdiction. No publicly filed Investigational New Drug application. The structurally related compound fosgonimeton (Athira Pharma) is in Phase 2 / 3 for neurodegenerative disease, but fosgonimeton is a different molecule and its clinical status does not transfer to dihexa. Dihexa is sold by gray-market research-chemical vendors labeled "for research use only, not for human consumption." Nick has not personally run a cycle of dihexa. His 4.75 rating reflects interest in the theoretical synaptogenic mechanism, tempered heavily by the retracted foundational literature, the c-Met oncogenic pathway concern, and the complete absence of human safety data.
Terminology
- Angiotensin IV: Short peptide fragment of the angiotensin system (Val-Tyr-Ile-His-Pro-Phe). Binds the AT4 receptor on IRAP. Linked to memory and hippocampal function in animal models.
- AT4 receptor: Binding site for angiotensin IV. Identified as IRAP (insulin-regulated aminopeptidase).
- IRAP: Insulin-regulated aminopeptidase. A membrane-bound zinc metallopeptidase that also serves as the AT4 receptor. Originally identified on insulin-responsive glucose transporter vesicles.
- HGF: Hepatocyte growth factor. Ligand that signals through the c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase. Drives proliferation, migration, and survival in many cell types. Central to both tissue repair and tumor biology.
- c-Met: Receptor tyrosine kinase for HGF. Validated oncogenic target. Blocked by FDA-approved cancer drugs capmatinib, tepotinib, and crizotinib.
- Synaptogenesis: Formation of new synaptic connections between neurons. Dihexa's claimed primary mechanism in rodent hippocampal tissue.
- BDNF: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Canonical neurotrophin that drives neuronal survival and plasticity. The frequently repeated comparison with dihexa (10 million times more potent than BDNF) came from retracted cross-receptor data.
- Spine density: Number of dendritic spines per unit length of dendrite. A structural proxy for synaptic connectivity.
- Morris water maze: Classic rodent spatial learning and memory task. The Benoist 2011 dihexa spatial-memory paper used this paradigm.
- Gray-market: Commerce that operates outside FDA regulatory oversight but is not explicitly prosecuted against individual buyers. Vendor sales for human consumption are illegal under the FDCA.
- IND: Investigational New Drug application. FDA filing required before legally dosing humans in a clinical trial.
Dosing & Protocols
Dosing information is summarized from published research and community reports. This is not a prescribing guide. Consult a healthcare provider before starting any protocol.
View 3 routes and 3 protocols
Routes & Forms
| Route | Form | Clinical Range | Community Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral capsule (gray-market) | 5-15 mg/day oral | ||
| Sublingual powder (gray-market) | 8-45 mg/day sublingual | ||
| Intranasal (gray-market, speculative) | 5-10 mg/day intranasal (speculative) |
Protocols
Starter / cautious Anecdotal
- Dose
- 8-12 mg/day sublingual
- Frequency
- daily
- Duration
- 2-4 weeks
Lower-end community dose for first-time users testing subjective tolerability. No clinical validation. Short duration is a hedge against the absence of long-term safety data. Rationale is pure biohacker caution, not pharmacology.
Intermediate / typical Anecdotal
- Dose
- 15-30 mg/day sublingual
- Frequency
- daily
- Duration
- 4-8 weeks
The most commonly reported community dose, roughly the midpoint of sublingual gray-market protocols. No RCT support. Duration reflects a typical biohacker cycle rather than any half-life or washout logic.
Max reported (no safety data) Anecdotal
- Dose
- 40-50 mg/day sublingual
- Frequency
- daily
- Duration
- 4-8 weeks
Upper-end community dose reported by heavy users. No safety data at this exposure. Higher dose with the same unknown long-term risk profile is worse, not better. Included for completeness, not endorsement.
Use-Case Specific Dosing
| Use Case | Dose | Notes |
|---|---|---|
How this score is calculated →
Upside (0.65 / 5.00)
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 25% | 1.5 | 0.375 | |
| Breadth of Benefits | 15% | 1.5 | 0.225 | |
| Evidence Quality | 25% | 1.2 | 0.300 | |
| Speed of Onset | 10% | 2.5 | 0.250 | |
| Durability | 10% | 2.0 | 0.200 | |
| Bioindividuality Upside | 15% | 2.0 | 0.300 | |
| Total | 1.650 |
Upside Rationale
Efficacy (1.5/5.0): Efficacy is weak because the human evidence base is empty. The rodent case for synaptogenesis comes from McCoy 2013 (rat hippocampal slice spine density, picomolar activity) and Benoist 2011 (aged-rat Morris water maze spatial memory rescue), plus one independent replication in Ali 2021 (APP / PS1 mouse cognitive rescue). That is directionally interesting. But the three foundational Harding / Wright WSU papers were retracted for data fabrication, which damages the mechanistic literature dihexa is built on. The widely quoted "10 million times more potent than BDNF" claim came from retracted cross-receptor comparisons. Net: a single-lab rodent signal with one independent replication, no human RCTs, and a compromised core literature. A 1.5 reflects a real but fragile mechanism.
Breadth (1.5/5.0): Dihexa is narrowly neurotrophic and cognitive in scope. The entire evidence base addresses hippocampal synaptogenesis and rodent spatial memory. One peripheral nerve regeneration signal exists (Seyedsadjadi 2022) in a combined mesenchymal-stem-cell context. Beyond the central nervous system and one peripheral nerve study, there is no documented signal in cardiovascular, metabolic, immune, bone, skin, longevity, or any other axis. The mechanism itself (HGF / c-Met activation) does have broad tissue-level effects in tumor biology, but that is a red flag rather than a breadth advantage. For a cognitive enhancer to score high on breadth it would need legitimate secondary effects (mood, neuroprotection confirmed in human populations, broader neuroplasticity endpoints). Dihexa does not have those yet.
Evidence (1.2/5.0): The evidence base is critically compromised. Three foundational WSU papers retracted for data fabrication. One independent animal replication (Ali 2021). One peripheral nerve study. Zero human trials. Zero human pharmacokinetics. Zero completed safety program. No ClinicalTrials.gov entry for dihexa itself (fosgonimeton is a different molecule). The clinically adjacent program (fosgonimeton at Athira Pharma) is in Phase 2 / 3 but its data does not transfer, and fosgonimeton has had mixed Phase 2 results. Industry integrity is low because gray-market vendor sourcing operates without cGMP. A 1.2 sits one tier above "no evidence at all" and honestly reflects a compound whose narrative was built on retracted papers.
Speed (2.5/5.0): Speed is entirely anecdotal. Community reports describe subjective cognitive acuity, sharper verbal recall, and near-universal vivid dreams within 1-3 days of starting. Rodent synaptogenesis signals emerge over 1-2 weeks of daily dosing. No objective human onset data exists. Subjective reports of rapid onset are the exact signal most vulnerable to placebo and expectation effects, especially in a gray-market community that is primed to perceive benefit. A 2.5 reflects a plausibly fast subjective onset with zero objective validation in humans.
Durability (2.0/5.0): Durability is unknown. Synaptogenesis, if real in humans, could theoretically produce lasting structural changes (new spines, new synapses) that persist beyond the dosing window. That is the optimistic reading. Against that, no longitudinal human data exists, rodent effects on spine density have not been followed for months post-cessation, and subjective community reports typically describe effects that fade after stopping. Without any washout study in humans or extended rodent follow-up, durability is speculative. A 2.0 reflects mechanistic plausibility of structural persistence offset by absence of any data supporting it.
Bioindividuality (2.0/5.0): Bioindividuality is uncharacterized. The gray-market user base is small, self-selected, and heavily confounded by uncertain product identity. No responder analysis exists, no genetic or baseline predictors have been studied, and no age or sex effects are documented. Even basic questions (who benefits most, who does not respond, what baseline features predict subjective acuity) are completely open. Nick has not run a personal cycle, so there is no n-of-1 signal for his own response either. A 2.0 reflects a placeholder for an unmapped responder landscape in a compound that has never been studied in a formal human trial.
Downside (1.97 / 5.00)
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety Risk | 30% | 3.5 | 1.050 | |
| Side Effect Profile | 15% | 2.0 | 0.300 | |
| Financial Cost | 5% | 2.5 | 0.125 | |
| Time/Effort Burden | 5% | 2.5 | 0.125 | |
| Opportunity Cost | 5% | 3.0 | 0.150 | |
| Dependency / Withdrawal | 15% | 1.5 | 0.225 | |
| Reversibility | 25% | 2.0 | 0.500 | |
| Total | 2.475 | |||
| Harm subtotal ร 1.4 | 2.905 | |||
| Opportunity subtotal ร 1.0 | 0.400 | |||
| Combined downside | 3.305 | |||
| Baseline offset (constant) | −1.340 | |||
| Effective downside penalty | 1.965 |
Downside Rationale
Safety (3.5/5.0): Safety is the dominant downside. HGF / c-Met potentiation operates through a validated oncogenic pathway. Multiple FDA-approved cancer drugs (capmatinib, tepotinib, crizotinib) exist specifically to block c-Met signaling in lung cancer and other tumors. Comoglio 2008 establishes HGF / c-Met as a documented driver of tumor growth and metastasis across several cancer types. Chronic activation in a healthy user is the biological opposite of what oncology is trying to achieve. No carcinogenicity studies on dihexa. No human safety data. No MTD, no long-term exposure studies. The theoretical cancer risk is serious and biologically grounded. Scores just below the 4.0 catastrophic floor because no confirmed malignancy cases exist, a function of tiny exposure populations, not biology suggesting safety.
Side Effects (2.0/5.0): Community side-effect reports include headaches, anxiety, overstimulation, insomnia, and near-universal vivid dreams. These are typically described as mild and occasional in a very small self-selected user base. No systematic side-effect profile has been collected. Gray-market product identity confounds every reported adverse signal: any given unwanted effect could be the compound, a degradation product, a contaminant, or an entirely different molecule sold under the dihexa label. A 2.0 reflects a mild reported side-effect profile in a limited sample, adjusted upward for the uncertainty that comes from uncharacterized sourcing and the complete absence of formal adverse-event reporting.
Cost (2.5/5.0): Gray-market research-chemical pricing runs roughly $30-60 per month at community dosing. The dollar figure is modest compared to high-end supplements or peptides. Cost scoring is adjusted upward by the quality-control overhead a responsible user would need to absorb: independent HPLC identity testing, mass-spec purity verification, and possibly third-party lot analysis add multiples to the base product cost. A $50 per month spend on a product whose identity cannot be confirmed is functionally wasted money on top of the downside risk. A 2.5 reflects the combined effect of modest sticker price and material quality-control overhead.
Effort (2.5/5.0): Effort is moderate and sourcing-weighted. Multiple administration routes are available (oral capsule, sublingual powder, occasional intranasal, subcutaneous in some protocols), which gives the user optionality but also forces a choice with no pharmacokinetic data to guide it. Powder weighing for sublingual dosing introduces measurement error with consumer scales in the milligram range. Sourcing due diligence is real work: vetting vendors, arranging independent identity and purity testing, managing storage and handling. The daily dosing adherence itself is trivial. The quality-control overhead is not. A 2.5 reflects moderate complexity that sits above a mainstream supplement and below a multi-step device-based protocol.
Opportunity (3.0/5.0): Opportunity cost is high because safer nootropic alternatives exist with actual human evidence. Creatine monohydrate has dozens of RCTs for cognition. Lion's mane has human data for nerve growth factor signaling. Bacopa has a long human evidence base for memory. Structured sleep, aerobic exercise, and resistance training produce cognitive benefits with known safety profiles. Choosing dihexa means accepting a research-grade oncogenic-pathway activator without human safety data, over interventions characterized in humans. That is a poor allocation for almost anyone without a specific neurodegenerative use case and medical supervision. A 3.0 reflects a real but not catastrophic opportunity cost because the mechanism is genuinely different from conventional nootropics.
Dependency (1.5/5.0): Dependency is uncharacterized but the mechanistic floor is low. Dihexa does not activate reward or dopaminergic pathways in any documented way, so pharmacologic dependency is not expected. No withdrawal syndrome has been reported in rodent discontinuation data or in gray-market community reports. Functional reliance (user feels dependent on dihexa to maintain cognitive performance) has not been studied. A 1.5 reflects an intervention with no mechanistic reason to expect dependency and no empirical signal of it, adjusted only slightly upward for the general uncertainty that applies to any uncharacterized compound with no completed human safety program.
Reversibility (2.0/5.0): Reversibility has two components with opposite signals. Short-term pharmacological reversibility appears high: dihexa has a short rodent half-life, community subjective effects typically fade within days to weeks of stopping, and there is no documented persistent pharmacological effect. Long-term structural reversibility is the concern. If synaptogenesis is real in humans, new synapses and spines may represent a lasting structural change that cannot be undone (positive or negative). More importantly, if chronic c-Met activation promotes or accelerates a malignancy, the consequence is irreversible by any standard definition. A 2.0 reflects the asymmetric reversibility profile: mostly reversible in the normal case, catastrophically irreversible in the tail.
Verdict
Best for: Researchers and informed self-experimenters specifically targeting neurodegenerative conditions who accept the oncogenic pathway risk, use short cycles, and source from verified vendors with third-party purity testing.
Avoid if: You have any cancer history, family cancer predisposition, are pregnant or nursing, or prefer interventions with human safety data. The retracted paper foundation and c-Met oncogenic pathway make this one of the riskiest compounds in the nootropic space.
Use Case Breakdown
The overall BioHarmony score reflects the intervention's primary evidence profile. These subratings are independent assessments per use case.
| Use Case | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| โ๏ธ Memory | 5.5 | Strongest signal. APP / PS1 mouse study (Ali 2021) demonstrates memory rescue. Synaptogenesis mechanism directly relevant. Retracted papers weaken confidence. |
| โ๏ธ Cognition / Focus | 5.0 | Primary target. One independent mouse study shows cognitive rescue in AD model, but foundational papers retracted. Community reports focus improvements. |
| โ๏ธ Neuroplasticity | 5.0 | Core mechanism is synaptogenesis via HGF / c-Met. Theoretically strong for structural plasticity. Evidence base critically compromised by retractions. |
| โ Neuroprotection | 4.5 | HGF / c-Met synaptogenesis is neuroprotective in theory. Mouse data supports. Retracted foundation and oncogenic pathway concern limit score. |
| โ Nerve Regeneration | 3.5 | One study (Seyedsadjadi 2022) on sciatic nerve regeneration with stem cells. Limited but directionally positive. |
| โ Traumatic Brain Injury | 3.0 | Neurotrophic mechanism theoretically relevant to TBI recovery. No direct TBI studies. Speculative. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is dihexa and how does it actually work mechanistically?
Dihexa is a small peptide mimetic derived from the angiotensin IV sequence. It binds the AT4 receptor, which was identified as insulin-regulated aminopeptidase (IRAP), and it potentiates hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) signaling at the c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase. The downstream effect in rodent hippocampal tissue is increased dendritic spine density and new synapse assembly, a phenomenon called synaptogenesis. The mechanism is biologically coherent and links an angiotensin-system receptor to a growth-factor pathway that also appears in tumor biology. This dual identity (cognitive enhancer and oncogenic pathway activator) is the central tension of the compound.
What did McCoy 2013 and Benoist 2011 actually demonstrate?
Benoist 2011 reported that aged rats with impaired Morris water maze performance showed restored spatial memory after daily dihexa administration, framed as an angiotensin IV memory-restoration signal. McCoy 2013 reported that dihexa applied to rat hippocampal slices produced a measurable increase in dendritic spine density and functional synapse number, which the authors called synaptogenic activity in the picomolar range. Both papers came out of the Harding and Wright labs at Washington State University. Three foundational papers from that group, including related dihexa work, were later retracted for data fabrication. The rodent findings are directionally interesting but the underlying dataset is now compromised and should be read with caution.
Why are there no human trials on dihexa specifically?
The original WSU program pivoted into a structurally distinct clinical candidate called fosgonimeton (ATH-1017) through Athira Pharma. Fosgonimeton went through IND filing, Phase 1, and is currently in Phase 2 / 3 for Alzheimer's disease. Dihexa itself was never developed as a clinical candidate by the originating lab or any commercial sponsor. The founding papers were partially retracted for data fabrication, which removed the scientific and regulatory path for dihexa specifically. No IND on public file, no ClinicalTrials.gov entry, no commercial program advancing it. Human data on dihexa may never arrive through a formal trial pathway.
What do gray-market users and biohackers actually report subjectively?
Gray-market community reports describe vivid subjective cognitive acuity within 1-3 days, sharper verbal recall, faster pattern recognition, and near-universal vivid dreams while on-cycle. Some users report headaches, anxiety, and overstimulation as off-target side effects. These reports are uniformly subjective and anecdotal. There is zero objective data (no Cogstate, no CANTAB, no biomarker, no structural imaging) in any gray-market or formal setting. The user base is small, self-selected, and operating without a control group. Subjective acuity is exactly the class of signal most vulnerable to placebo and expectation effects. Nothing about the community report base constitutes evidence of efficacy in a scientific sense.
How serious is the cancer concern with c-Met activation?
The concern is serious and biologically grounded. c-Met is a validated oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinase, and multiple FDA-approved cancer drugs (capmatinib, tepotinib, crizotinib) were designed specifically to block c-Met signaling in lung cancer and other tumors. HGF / c-Met activation is a documented driver of tumor growth and metastasis across several cancer types (Comoglio 2008). Chronic pharmacologic activation of this pathway in a healthy user is the opposite of what oncology is trying to achieve. No carcinogenicity study on dihexa. No human long-term safety data. The risk is theoretical only because exposure has been small and short, not because biology suggests safety.
How do people actually source dihexa and what are the sourcing risks?
Dihexa is sold by a small number of gray-market research-chemical and peptide vendors, almost always labeled "for research use only, not for human consumption." These vendors operate outside cGMP pharmaceutical manufacturing. Independent HPLC and mass-spec verification of identity and purity is rare, and lot-release testing is essentially nonexistent. A product labeled dihexa may contain the intended peptide, a degradation product, a different compound entirely, or contaminants. There is no recall mechanism, no adverse-event reporting, no FDA consumer protection. The supply chain risk stacks on top of the compound-level risk.
What are the hard contraindications for dihexa?
Personal or family history of any cancer is a hard contraindication given the c-Met oncogenic pathway and the absence of carcinogenicity data. Pregnancy, lactation, and pediatric use are absolute contraindications because no safety data exists in those populations. Anyone with cardiovascular disease should avoid it because HGF and c-Met play roles in cardiac remodeling that are uncharacterized in healthy adults. Anyone on prescription medications should avoid it because there is zero drug-interaction data. Anyone who cannot independently verify product identity through third-party testing should not use a gray-market product in this risk class.
What is the actual legal status of dihexa in the US?
Dihexa is not a scheduled controlled substance, so simple personal possession is not a drug-scheduling offense in the US. However, sale and distribution for human consumption are illegal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which is why every vendor labels the product "for research use only, not for human consumption." That label does not create a safe harbor for buyers who intend to self-administer. In practice, individual buyers are not prosecuted, but the compound is squarely in a legal gray area. There is no FDA-approved human use, no legal marketing channel, no labeling guarantee, and no regulatory consumer protection if something goes wrong.
How This Score Could Change
BioHarmony scores are living assessments. New research, regulatory changes, or personal context can shift the score up or down. These are the most likely scenarios that would change this intervention's rating.
| Scenario | Dimensions Changed | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Independent lab replicates cognitive rescue in humans | Evidence 1.2 to 2.5, Efficacy 1.5 to 3.0 | 5.8 / 10 (Worth trying) |
| Long-term animal carcinogenicity study shows tumor promotion | Safety 3.5 to 4.5 | 4.1 / 10 (Caution) |
| Human Phase 1 shows clean safety and biomarker signal | Evidence 1.2 to 2.5, Safety 3.5 to 2.5 | 6.0 / 10 (Worth trying) |
| Fosgonimeton Phase 3 succeeds (indirect validation) | Evidence 1.2 to 2.0, Efficacy 1.5 to 2.5 | 5.5 / 10 (Neutral) |
BioHarmony v0.5 methodology. Date scored: 2026-04-18. Author: Nick Urban, CHEK Functional Health Coach Level 1.
Key Evidence Sources
- McCoy AT et al. 2013. Evaluation of metabolically stabilized angiotensin IV analogs as procognitive / antidementia agents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. Rat hippocampal synaptogenesis in the picomolar range.. Original synaptogenesis signal paper from the Harding / Wright WSU program. RETRACTED for data fabrication. Foundational to the dihexa narrative but no longer a reliable citation.
- Benoist CC et al. 2011. Facilitation of hippocampal synaptogenesis and spatial memory by C-terminal truncated Nle1-angiotensin IV analogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. Aged-rat Morris water maze spatial memory rescue.. Spatial memory rescue in aged rats and supporting synaptogenesis readouts. Key early behavioral paper from the same WSU program.
- Albiston AL et al. 2001. Evidence that the angiotensin IV (AT4) receptor is the enzyme insulin-regulated aminopeptidase. J Biol Chem. IRAP identification as the AT4 binding site.. Foundational pharmacology that identified IRAP as the AT4 receptor. Essential for understanding the angiotensin IV receptor pharmacology that dihexa builds on.
- Wright JW, Harding JW. 2008. The angiotensin AT4 receptor subtype as a target for the treatment of memory dysfunction associated with Alzheimer's disease. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst. Review of AT4 receptor biology and cognitive targets.. Mechanism review from the originating lab establishing the AT4 cognitive-target rationale that dihexa was designed against.
- Ali MA et al. 2021. Dihexa attenuates cognitive impairment in APP / PS1 mice. Independent replication of cognitive rescue in an Alzheimer's mouse model.. Only independent replication of a cognitive signal in a non-WSU lab. Directionally supportive but still rodent-only and does not substitute for human data.
- Seyedsadjadi R et al. 2022. Dihexa supports sciatic nerve regeneration with mesenchymal stem cells. Rodent peripheral nerve regeneration signal.. Peripheral nerve regeneration application distinct from cognitive use. Modest, single-study signal in a combined stem-cell context.
- Comoglio PM et al. 2008. Drug development of MET inhibitors in oncology. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Establishes c-Met as a validated oncogenic target.. Foundational oncology review. Explains why chronic c-Met activation in a healthy user is biologically concerning and why capmatinib, tepotinib, and crizotinib were developed as c-Met blockers.
- Athira Pharma SEC filings and ClinicalTrials.gov entries for fosgonimeton (ATH-1017). Phase 2 / 3 HGF / c-Met positive modulator for neurodegenerative disease.. Clinical-stage compound derived from the same HGF / c-Met program. Structurally distinct from dihexa but mechanistically related. Clinical progress here does not transfer to dihexa specifically.
Other interventions for Memory
See all ratings โ๐ How BioHarmony scoring works
BioHarmony translates a weighted expected-value calculation into a reader-facing 0โ10 score. 5.0 is neutral (benefits and risks balance). Above 5 = benefits outweigh risks; below 5 = risks outweigh benefits.
Harm-type downsides (safety risk, side effects, reversibility, dependency) carry a 1.4× precautionary multiplier. Harm weighs more than benefit. Opportunity-type downsides (financial cost, time/effort, opportunity cost) are subtracted at face value.
Use case subratings are independent assessments of how well the intervention addresses specific health goals. They are not components of the overall score. Each subrating reflects the scorer's judgment based on use-case-specific evidence, safety, and effect sizes.
Every dimension is evaluated on a 1–5 scale, and the baseline (1) is subtracted before weighting. A perfect intervention with zero downsides contributes zero penalty rather than a residual floor, so top-tier scores are actually reachable.
EV = Upside − Downside
EV = 0.650 − 1.965 = -1.315
EV ranges from −5 to +5. Adding 7 shifts to 2–12, dividing by 12 normalizes to 0–1, then ×10 gives the 0–10 score.
Score = ((-1.315 + 7) / 12) × 10 = 4.7 / 10
