On the days where I was still energetic enough to try and debunk some of the pseudosciences, I quickly discovered that one of the primary rules is absolutely never to trust one single article, however "scientific", and however reputable the publisher of the journal/conference is.
Otherwise one quickly becomes overwhelmed by the amount of crap published by otherwise "respectable" publishers (e.g. Elsevier's Journal of Homeopathy). Let's not even get into non-reviewed articles...
The only things that _may_ have any value whatsoever are the ones published in utmost respectable _journals_ themselves (e.g. Nature, but absolutely not on any of their spinoffs), and/or when there are very big labs/organizations in the authors list. Very big. I mean usually national pharmaceutical associations (obviously not from all states) or huge corporations (who will generally avoid putting their name on the line either way).
Meta-analyses most importantly do NOT have any intrinsinc value either _just because_ they are meta-analyses.
By reading bioXiv directly, you are most likely doing yourself a disservice. Unless you are a state agency or huge corporation having huge resources backing your which allows you to internally replicate whatever they claim.