A study following 4,000 Japanese adults for 15 years found that those with the highest riboflavin (vitamin B₂) intake had about a 49 % lower risk of disabling dementia than those with the lowest intake. The EatingWell article reports this accurately and notes some caveats, although its headline implies a clear cause-and-effect that isn’t supported. The result comes from an observational study, meaning it shows correlation, not proof that riboflavin prevents dementia. People who eat more riboflavin-rich foods (like dairy, eggs, and mushrooms) may also have healthier overall diets and lifestyles. The study relied on a single 24-hour food recall, which adds uncertainty. Importantly, previous large clinical trials of B-vitamin supplements have generally failed to prevent cognitive decline, suggesting that any benefit from riboflavin may be modest or indirect. While the article responsibly encourages a balanced diet, it could better convey that these findings, while intriguing, don’t yet justify supplement use.

Very nice article and timely with upcoming guidelines changes. Good explanation of potential bias (or lack of) from those interviewed. Could be strengthered by including other similar recent studies. Engaged comment section, take some with a pinch of salt.

Well researched article on a new publication in Nature Comms. Good balanced report, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the study with opinions from experts in the field.

An interesting and worthwhile article describing a complicated paper well. The authors are quoted throughout and the study is linked. Other studies could have been added to further explore the history of cholera research

An interesting idea but the article only describes one study, which is not linked at all so difficult to tell how the results have been interpreted. Otherwise sweeping generalisations are made about woman feeling 'off' on their period without any scientific evidence given.

Well written science article, based mostly on accounts from well respected scientists. Balanced with clear reporting on where funding from pharma companies may have contributed to studies

Interesting article with well written arguments and appropriate visual aids. However no external references or links to peer reviewed articles are included.