Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Comparison Centre

Two compounds, the same questions, no cherry-picking

Marketing compares compounds on whichever measure flatters them. This compares them on the same fields every time — including the awkward ones like how much human safety data exists. Every score here rates the evidence, not the compound: a higher number means stronger or more mature research, not that something is safer or works better.

Sharing keeps the two compounds you picked.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

Calcitonin (salmon)

A salmon-derived hormone peptide once common in bone disease, now used more narrowly after regulators weighed modest benefit against a debated malignancy signal.

L4Good human trialsApproved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · FDA (US), European regulators
Full profile

Teriparatide

A parathyroid-hormone fragment that builds bone — one of the few anabolic osteoporosis treatments.

L5Repeated human trialsApproved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · FDA (US)
Full profile

How far human research has progressed

Calcitonin (salmon)

Established medicine with a narrowed modern role

Teriparatide

Long-approved osteoporosis medicine

Claim-specific benefit evidence

A human exposure study or trial registration does not establish that the claimed benefit occurs.

Calcitonin (salmon)

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Teriparatide

Not separately assessed; see the full profile.

Human research context

Calcitonin (salmon)

Established medicine with a narrowed modern role

Teriparatide

Long-approved osteoporosis medicine

Human efficacy evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Calcitonin (salmon)

Strength of the human efficacy evidence65 of 100 evidence strength

Teriparatide

Strength of the human efficacy evidence85 of 100 evidence strength

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Calcitonin (salmon)

Strength of the animal and lab evidence65 of 100 evidence strength

Teriparatide

Strength of the animal and lab evidence80 of 100 evidence strength

Human safety evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

Calcitonin (salmon)

Strength of the human safety evidence60 of 100 evidence strength

Teriparatide

Strength of the human safety evidence80 of 100 evidence strength

Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)

Calcitonin (salmon)

Named regulators: FDA (US), European regulators

Approved formulations have included injectable products (e.g. for Paget's disease and hypercalcaemia) and nasal spray products (for postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at least five years past menopause when alternatives are unsuitable). Availability and indications vary by product and market; European regulators restricted uses after a 2012 safety review.

Teriparatide

Named regulators: FDA (US)

Approved for osteoporosis in patients at high fracture risk, with indications varying by label and region. Indication-specific.

Common claims

Calcitonin (salmon)

  • · Slows bone loss in postmenopausal osteoporosis
  • · Treats Paget's disease and high blood calcium

Teriparatide

  • · Reduces fracture risk in high-risk osteoporosis
  • · Builds new bone rather than only slowing loss

How settled our evidence rating is

Calcitonin (salmon)

Moderate confidence in ratingL4Good human trials

Teriparatide

High confidence in ratingL5Repeated human trials

Cancer-related questions raised by the biology

These are theoretical or monitored questions raised by how a compound works. They are not evidence that it causes cancer.

Calcitonin (salmon)

A documented regulatory review found a small numerical imbalance in malignancy rates in long-term trials of calcitonin-salmon products; causality was not established. This is observed-trial-data discussion, not a purely mechanistic concern.

Teriparatide

Rat studies found osteosarcoma at exposures far above human dosing, driving precautionary labelling. Post-marketing surveillance in humans has not established the same risk, but the precaution shapes how the drug is used.

What this adds up to, in plain English

Calcitonin (salmon)

Real controlled human trials exist, but questions about approval, how long benefits last, or long-term safety are still open.

Teriparatide

Repeated large human trials support specific uses in the groups studied. That is strong evidence something works there — not proof it suits everyone or is free of risk.

A comparison is not a recommendation

Neither column here is an endorsement, and the compound with the higher numbers is not the “better” or “safer” one — it is simply the one with more or better-quality research behind it. Two compounds can both be poorly evidenced, and better-evidenced says nothing about whether either is a sensible idea for a specific person. That is a conversation for a qualified clinician.