Selected evidence, with explicit limits
Our detailed evidence tables answer selected questions about ten compounds. It is not a systematic review, GRADE assessment, exhaustive trial search or personalized recommendation. PubMed indexing is not a quality score. Absence from our selected records is not proof that no evidence or approval exists.
What the labels mean
- Source checked: we read the linked source for the question on the page. This does not mean a clinician reviewed it or every possible source was searched.
- Not yet checked: the detailed table does not have a recorded source check. Follow the fact sheet’s references and read its limitations.
- Conflicting: primary records disagree on a consequential point; interpretation needs review before a changed claim is published.
- Trial phase describes the study purpose. Recruitment status describes enrollment or conduct. Registry results and peer-reviewed publication are separate fields.
- Approval records name product, formulation, population, jurisdiction and use. A safety warning or food-ingredient record cannot establish drug approval.
What we look for in a study
We record study identifiers, design, people enrolled, actual or estimated sample size, comparator, follow-up, primary and exploratory outcomes, results, uncertainty and harms. Where funding or conflicts have not been confirmed, we say so rather than claiming independence. Our summaries draw on primary-paper abstracts, FDA documents, and official trial records. We identify details that require the full paper; we do not present these summaries as a full-text review or independent clinical assessment.
Source checked dates describe the actual check, not publication dates or clinical review. The explorer flags checks older than 90 days. Stable study results and volatile regulatory status still need different maintenance priorities.
How we handle reported experiences
Anecdotes answer a different question: what did someone say they noticed? Each summarized report has a source, context, and a limitation. Public forum accounts may have unknown product identity, other exposures, selection bias, or undisclosed commercial interests. We do not reproduce instructions, promote sellers, or present reports as clinical proof.
When the original account states an amount, frequency, route or duration, we keep those details beside that person's reported outcome. Missing or conflicting details stay explicit. An amount from a personal account is not an established dose; selected posts cannot tell us a common regimen, typical result or side-effect rate.
Clinical case reports document individual observations, while patient surveys collect self-reports from a selected group. Neither supplies a reliable incidence rate without an appropriate denominator and study design. When no attributable account is included, we say so instead of inventing a typical experience.
Changes require review
Source-health checks create a private review queue. They do not rewrite or certify claims. Regulatory changes, pivotal studies and corrections take priority. An inaccessible URL is a source-health issue, not evidence that the underlying finding is false. Expansion pauses when unresolved checks exceed editorial capacity.
Responsibility and corrections
PeptideFactSheets is responsible for publication and corrections. No named medical reviewer is currently identified, and independent clinical review is not claimed. Send a page URL, the disputed statement and a primary source through the correction channel. Avoid sending private medical histories. See the correction history and editorial responsibilities.