Research Desk
Every rating on this site comes from one hierarchy. Levels do not accumulate: a hundred Level 2 studies never add up to Level 4. Understanding that single point will make you harder to sell to than most people in this space.
Evidence levels (L0-L5) describe research maturity, not safety or a recommendation. Human exposure reports and trial registration do not prove a claimed benefit; where they differ, claim-specific evidence is shown separately. Confidence and regulatory status are independent.
For priority compounds we display human research maturity and claim-specific benefit evidence separately. Trial stage, source provenance, confidence, regulatory approval and safety are distinct assessments.
Newer research compounds we track early — including molecules that are not peptides at all. Nothing here has established human efficacy.
Molecule type says what a compound is made of, not how well it works. Several compounds discussed in peptide circles are ordinary small molecules, and labelling them accurately is part of following the evidence.
Experimental senolytic peptide with cell and mouse evidence, but no established human efficacy or safety.
Evidence maturity: Level 2 — Animal and lab studies — Preclinical: laboratory and mouse experiments
A modified peptide — sequence changes, added chains or protective groups — designed to behave differently from the natural molecule. Evidence for the natural molecule does not transfer to the analogue. Last reviewed 2026-10-11.
A branded follistatin-derived protein construct marketed with muscle-growth claims. No FLGR-242-specific animal outcome study, human study or registered human trial has been identified; related evidence is not compound-specific evidence.
Evidence maturity: Level 1 — Theory only — Preclinical concept / no compound-specific outcome study identified
Another class of biological agent that is not a peptide or small molecule. Last reviewed 2026-10-11.
An investigational localized fat-reduction small-molecule injection, studied for abdominal subcutaneous fat reduction rather than whole-body obesity treatment. Not a peptide.
Evidence maturity: Level 4 — Good human trials — Completed controlled Phase 2 and Phase 2b trials for localized abdominal subcutaneous fat reduction; pivotal Phase 3 started September 2026
A conventional chemical compound, not made of amino acids. Included here because it is discussed alongside peptides, not because it is one. Last reviewed 2026-10-03.
An investigational antibody that inhibits myostatin activation, with a peer-reviewed Phase 2 trial showing less DXA-measured lean-mass loss during tirzepatide treatment, but no proven functional outcome in obesity.
Evidence maturity: Level 4 — Good human trials — Completed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 (EMBRAZE) in obesity; peer reviewed in Nature Medicine, 8 June 2026
Another class of biological agent that is not a peptide or small molecule. Last reviewed 2026-10-03.
An investigational myostatin-blocking antibody with controlled Phase 2 data on DXA-measured lean mass and MRI-measured thigh fat-free muscle volume alongside semaglutide, but no proven functional outcome.
Evidence maturity: Level 4 — Good human trials — Completed controlled Phase 2 body-composition trial; sponsor-reported 52-week findings presented at EASD 2026 and described as in press
Another class of biological agent that is not a peptide or small molecule. Last reviewed 2026-10-02.
A small-molecule research chemical — not a peptide — that activates the ERR nuclear receptors and increased running capacity in mice. No human data.
Evidence maturity: Level 2 — Animal and lab studies — Preclinical only — animal and cell work, no human study identified
A conventional chemical compound, not made of amino acids. Included here because it is discussed alongside peptides, not because it is one. Last reviewed 2026-09-21.
A small indole-derived molecule — not a peptide — studied in cells and mice for mitochondrial disease. No human trial evidence in our record.
Evidence maturity: Level 2 — Animal and lab studies — Preclinical — patient-derived cell work and mouse models of mitochondrial disease
A conventional chemical compound, not made of amino acids. Included here because it is discussed alongside peptides, not because it is one. Last reviewed 2026-09-21.
A 20-amino-acid neuropeptide studied in animals and cultured cells across reproductive, gut and metabolic biology. No human trial evidence.
Evidence maturity: Level 2 — Animal and lab studies — Preclinical — animal physiology and cultured-cell work only
A short chain of amino acids. This is the registry's core subject matter. Last reviewed 2026-09-21.
A short mitochondria-targeted research peptide that binds cardiolipin. Evidence is cell and mouse work, including 2026 optic-nerve injury data.
Evidence maturity: Level 2 — Animal and lab studies — Preclinical — cell studies and mouse retinal and optic-nerve models
A short chain of amino acids. This is the registry's core subject matter. Last reviewed 2026-09-21.
Twelve people is a pilot, not a proof. Small trials produce extreme results in both directions purely by chance, and the extreme ones are the ones that get shared.
One dramatic finding is a hypothesis. When independent groups repeat it and get the same answer, it becomes knowledge. Ask who else has found this — and whether they were connected to the original authors.
An 'endpoint' is simply the thing a study measured. A surrogate endpoint is a stand-in for what you actually care about — raising IGF-1, shifting a blood marker or shrinking something on a scan. Surrogates sometimes move in the right direction while real-world outcomes don't move at all.
A control group is the comparison group that does not get the treatment; blinding means participants (and ideally researchers) don't know who got what. Pain, fatigue and recovery respond powerfully to expectation and to time, so without a control group you cannot tell a treatment effect from healing that was going to happen anyway.
Industry funding does not automatically invalidate a study — most drug research is industry funded. But it changes how much benefit of the doubt is reasonable, especially with selective reporting.
'Reduces risk by 50%' can mean a change from 2 in 1000 to 1 in 1000. Relative numbers sound enormous; absolute numbers are what you actually experience.
A press release is marketing with citations. A preprint has not been peer reviewed. Neither is worthless, and neither is a finished result.
Studies showing nothing get published less often. So the visible literature on any hyped compound is systematically rosier than the research actually done.
The question that cuts through almost everything