Neuro & cognitive
DSIP / Emideltide
A neuropeptide named for a sleep effect first described in the 1970s that decades of follow-up have never clearly replicated in humans.
- How settled this rating is:
- very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Not established
- Also known as:
- Delta sleep-inducing peptide, emideltide
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-08-23
Jump to section
Evidence passport
DSIP / Emideltide
A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.
- Evidence level
- L1Theory only
- Confidence
- Very low confidence in rating
- Regulatory status
- Research / unapproved supply
- Development status
- Unclear
Evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.
- Evidence base
- Mostly animal and laboratory research
- Furthest established stage
- Not established
- Human research maturity
- Historical small studies with inconsistent results
- Source curation
- Sources fully curated
Routes recorded
Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells
Overview
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
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.
How far human research has progressed: Historical small studies with inconsistent results
Routes & formulations
The curated record does not establish a studied route with consistent findings. Research-market products are unapproved, and route availability is not evidence of effect.
Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.
Peptide lifecycle
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
No established development programme in the curated record; historical research only.
What it is
A nine-amino-acid peptide named in the 1970s after reports that it induced delta-wave sleep in animals. Its name describes a finding that later work struggled to reproduce.
What people claim
- Induces deep sleep
- Helps insomnia, opioid withdrawal and narcolepsy
What the evidence actually says
The gap between the name and the evidence is the story here. Human studies have been small, old and inconsistent, and sleep efficacy in humans has never been convincingly demonstrated. A name is not a result.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
Semax evidence profile
A synthetic heptapeptide derived from an ACTH fragment, registered as nasal drops in Russia and heavily marketed elsewhere as a nootropic.
- Compare
Compare DSIP / Emideltide vs Semax evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Checked claim
Claim review: “Semax is FDA-approved as a nootropic nasal spray.”
A closely related claim we have graded, from Neuro & cognitive.
- Context
Research Desk
How to read animal, early-phase and controlled human studies without over-reading them.
Human evidence
- Small historical human studies with inconsistent findings; no adequately powered controlled trials establish sleep benefit.
Preclinical evidence
- Animal electrophysiology and behavioural studies from multiple decades, with mixed replication.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- Proposed modulation of sleep-regulating circuits; mechanism remains unestablished.
Safety and unknowns
- FDA has identified significant safety risks for compounding, and the July 2026 PCAC meeting reviewed its nominations. That is a policy consultation, not an approval.
- No systematic human safety dataset exists.
Cancer relevance
This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.
No established human signal
Regulatory status
Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.
Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.
Not an approved medicine in any major region. FDA has identified it as a bulk substance presenting significant safety risks for compounding; that listing status changed during 2026, and DSIP (emideltide) was covered by FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting on 23-24 July 2026 across insomnia, opioid-withdrawal and narcolepsy-related nominations.
Evidence grade
Mechanistic rationale or early development without qualifying compound-specific outcome evidence. A registered trial is not a result.
What would change our rating?
- Adequately powered, pre-registered controlled trials with objective sleep endpoints.
References and sources
Source transparency
A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.
- Last editorial review
- 2026-08-23
- Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 2
- Sources still pending
- 0
- External specialist reviews
- 0
- None recorded for this profile
Review provenance
Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.
Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.
- Regulatory / labelFDA — Bulk drug substances used in compounding (Category 2 list)
- Regulatory / labelFDA — July 23-24, 2026 meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee
Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.
Evidence change history
These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.
No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-08-23.