If you follow health influencers or longevity experts online, you’ve likely heard about Nattokinase, an enzyme derived from fermented soybeans.

It’s frequently hyped as an inexpensive miracle supplement that can single-handedly melt away up to 95% of arterial plaque, offering a cheap alternative to expensive statins or invasive surgical procedures.

Influencers routinely point to scientific literature to back up these bold claims. But does the published research actually say what they claim it does?

To separate online hype from scientific reality, we ran a Tessa analysis on one of the primary systematic reviews frequently cited to validate nattokinase: “Nattokinase Supplementation and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.“

Here is what Tessa revealed when we put this paper under the microscope.

What the Paper Actually Showed

Despite social media claims that nattokinase clears plaque and dramatically lowers cholesterol, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found something very different:

• No Plaque Busting or Lipid Lowering: Across the pooled trial data, nattokinase showed no consistent lipid-lowering effect. In fact, lower total doses of nattokinase were actually associated with a slight increase in total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and a slight decrease in HDL (“good”) cholesterol.
• Modest Blood Pressure Reduction: The paper did confirm a small, statistically significant drop in blood pressure (roughly 3.4 mmHg systolic and 2.3 mmHg diastolic). While helpful, this modest drop is a far cry from replacing standard medical treatments.
• A Slight Increase in Blood Glucose: The analysis noted a small but statistically significant increase in fasting blood glucose among participants taking nattokinase.

The Tessa Overall Score

TScore: 66 / 100 ( Yellow – Caution)

A graphical illustration of Tessa’s analysis of the paper

Tessa Analysis Results

Tessa Sub-Scores

The Tessa Analysis Breakdown

While the authors followed standard PRISMA reporting protocols (achieving an 88% completeness score), Tessa Pro’s deep-dive evaluation highlighted major structural vulnerabilities in the underlying evidence:

• Methodological Quality (AMSTAR 2): Critically Low Confidence — Although the authors conducted duplicate screening and used standard risk-of-bias tools, the review suffered from critical methodological gaps. Key issues included an incomplete search strategy (excluding trial registries and grey literature), failure to provide a detailed list of excluded studies with justifications, and no reporting on the funding sources of the primary trials analyzed.
• Certainty of Evidence (GRADE): Very Low Certainty — When evaluated using the GRADE framework across 8 primary outcomes, the certainty of evidence dropped to Very Low for most findings, including LDL, HDL, blood pressure, and adverse event reporting. The primary driver for this rating was the small number of overall participants (only 6 RCTs totaling 546 subjects) combined with unexplained heterogeneity (variability) between trial results.
• Citation Integrity: Tessa’s citation engine verified 95% of the paper’s references with an average relevance score of 7.1/10, showing solid context alignment without evidence of aggressive citation padding.

The Bottom Line: While the systematic review itself was conducted in good faith, the actual primary data simply does not support the massive health claims circulating on social media.

See for yourself: Read the full, objective Tessa analysis report here (includes links to the study): https://www.tessapp.ai/report/39076715

If you’re interested in similar studies, check out the Tessa analysis of these:

• Cohort Study (1,062 people): (65 / 100 ( Yellow) — Effective management of atherosclerosis progress and hyperlipidemia with nattokinase: A clinical study with 1,062 participants. (Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine)
• Narrative Review: (50 / 100 ( Yellow) — Research Progress of Nattokinase in Reducing Blood Lipid. (Nutrients)

How Tessa evaluated the viral study linking arts engagement to slower cellular aging.

We’ve all felt that shift in perspective after walking through an art gallery, getting lost in a great book, or singing along to our favorite music. It feels deeply restorative. But could engaging with arts and culture actually be slowing down your biological clock at the same rate as a session at the gym?

A study published in the journal Innovation in Aging set out to answer exactly that. The title? “Does frequency or diversity of leisure activity matter more for epigenetic ageing? Analyses of arts engagement and physical activity.”

The internet headlines practically write themselves: “Skip the Gym, Hit the Museum!”

But here at Siensmetrica, we don’t just graze the headlines, we run them through Tessa, our AI-powered research trustworthiness system built on the core principles of Transparency, Explainability, and Significance. Here is what the study found, and what a deep dive into the data actually tells us.

The Claims: Art vs. Exercise

The researchers utilized data from over 3,500 UK adults to see how leisure activities impact advanced DNA-methylation “epigenetic clocks” (specifically PhenoAge, DunedinPoAm, and DunedinPACE). These advanced cellular tests are designed to measure physical healthspan and how fast the human body is declining, rather than just looking at a birth year.

The findings were remarkable:

• The Equalizer: Engaging in arts and culture (like painting, singing, or visiting historic sites) showed an “anti-aging” effect on these cellular clocks that was comparable in strength to physical exercise.
• The 40+ Boost: While the benefits apply broadly, the relationship between these leisure activities and slower biological aging was notably stronger in middle-aged and older adults.

On the surface, it’s a beautiful validation for the culturally curious. But what happens when we look under the hood?

The Tessa Evaluation: A Solid 73 (Green)

When we put this paper through Tessa, our open access tool that analyzes over 200 data points across five critical categories, it generated a TScore of 73. Under our data validation parameters, that places the study firmly in the Green (Trustworthy) zone.

Overall T-Score: 73/100 (Green )

A Green score means the foundational science is highly reliable. However, as any scientist will tell you, there is no such thing as “perfect” in research. Tessa broke down the exact data points to show us why this paper earned its Green status, and where the boundaries of that trust lie:

• The boundaries of a 73: This is a cross-sectional, observational study relying on self-reported data. While the math is excellent, it proves a strong association, but it cannot definitively prove causality. Do arts slow down aging, or are naturally healthier, slower-aging people simply more likely to have the disposable time and energy to visit museums?

The Tessa Takeaway

A Green TScore means you can trust the data integrity of this study—the science is solid. However, even the best observational research leaves open the ultimate question of cause and effect.

If this study caught your eye, it makes for fantastic lunchtime conversation. We highly encourage you to read the full, Tessa Report. Beyond just the headline score, the complete report maps out the researchers’ exact data models, adjusts for socioeconomic factors, and provides a deeper breakdown of individual sub-scores like author history, journal metrics, and media discussion. It’s an excellent read for anyone who likes to look past the media hype and see how a breakthrough is actually constructed.

Ultimately, this paper beautifully articulates something we all intuitively understand: a vibrant, creative life is vital for our well-being. So the next time you’re debating between an extra hour on the treadmill or a quiet afternoon wandering an art gallery, remember that exercising your imagination might just be doing as much to keep your cells young as a heavy cardio session.

It turns out that giving your mind a workout can be just as good for your health!

Note: Hat tip to Jordan Shlain MD. This study originally appeared in his SubStack under the title Just One Thing! Art