How we rate evidence

Every entry carries one evidence level, describing how much human research supports its studied uses — not how well it "works." The ladder is deliberately conservative.

Established evidence

Multiple human trials, broadly consistent findings. Often an approved drug in at least one indication.

Moderate evidence

Some human data plus supporting animal work — promising but not settled; results vary.

Emerging evidence

Early: mostly preclinical or anecdotal, little or no controlled human evidence. Treat with the most caution.

Separate from evidence: a peptide can be well-studied and still not approved for human use.

FDA-approved

Approved by the FDA for at least one human indication.

Prescription only

Available by prescription in some contexts.

Research peptide — not FDA-approved

A research chemical — not approved for human use. Many peptides sit here.

We follow a research-accuracy model, not a clinical-advice one. Entries are written by a research writer and reviewed by a credentialed reviewer (PhD/PharmD) for scientific accuracy — not "medically reviewed," because we review whether the research is represented correctly, not whether a protocol is safe for you.

Where that review has not happened yet, we say so plainly — a review-pending state rather than a fabricated byline. It means the credentialed sign-off and the citation list are still being added, not that the entry is unsupported. Reviewed entries show the reviewer’s name, a last-reviewed date, and primary-literature citations.

Reviewed entries link their primary sources (PubMed / DOI). On any entry you can also run a live PubMed search from the Evidence & sources section to check the literature yourself — testing our labels is encouraged.