Hype against randomized trials for one topic, computed and dated 30 October 2026. It rates the topic, never a person, and gives no dosing and no sourcing.
The short version
140Kyearly wiki viewsEnglish Wikipedia, to 30 Sep 2026
71randomized-trial paperstyped on PubMed
1,968views per trial paperlower is better backed
Hype is nudging aheadthe verdictby the published rule
Retinol
Hype is nudging ahead
1,968yearly views per trial paper
hype140K views a yearproof71 trial papers
Trials exist, but attention is running a step ahead of the record.
English Wikipedia readers opened the Retinol article about 140K times in the year to 30 September 2026. PubMed holds 71 papers typed as randomized trials for it, which is 1,968 yearly views per trial paper. By the published rule that earns the verdict Hype is nudging ahead.
That is a statement about the gap between attention and trial record. It does not say whether Retinol works or whether it is safe for anyone.
How does it compare with the others?
Retinol next to the other fourhype above, proof below, read 30 October 2026
Top chart: attention. Bottom chart: randomized-trial papers typed on PubMed. The highlighted bar is Retinol. A big top bar over a small bottom bar is what the meter reads as hype ahead of the trials.