Methodology
How WhichPeps turns source material into evidence summaries without flattening important differences.
The method is designed to preserve study type, population, route, formulation, outcome, limitations and source provenance so a reader can see why a statement is being made.
The evidence pipeline
Identify the compound precisely
Names, analogues, formulations and related molecules are not treated as automatically equivalent.
Classify the evidence
Human, animal, laboratory, review, regulatory and development records remain distinct.
Capture the outcome
Population, intervention, comparator, endpoint, duration, route and limitations are recorded at outcome level where possible.
Write the plain-English summary
The summary should reflect what the source supports, including negative or null results and uncertainty.
Link back to sources
Readers can go deeper rather than being asked to trust an unsupported statement.
What WhichPeps does not do
- Does not treat animal evidence as proven human benefit.
- Does not hide negative results because they weaken a popular claim.
- Does not let commercial relationships change an evidence conclusion.
- Does not silently turn uncertain evidence into a treatment recommendation.
- Does not collapse a compound into one universal A–F, star or numerical score when evidence differs by outcome, population, route or formulation.
How WhichPeps uses evidence-status language
WhichPeps uses short evidence-status phrases to help readers orient themselves, but they are not universal grades and they do not replace outcome-level evidence. The same compound can sit in different categories for different claims, populations, routes or formulations.
Strong or established human evidence
Multiple well-designed human studies and/or regulated-product evidence support a defined outcome in a defined population. This does not make the finding universal across indications, doses, routes or products.
Limited human evidence
Human data exist, but may be small, early, uncontrolled, indirect, older, population-specific or otherwise insufficient for broad conclusions.
Human pharmacology / PK-PD evidence
Human exposure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics or biomarker effects are documented, but that is not the same as demonstrated clinical benefit.
Preclinical only
The evidence is limited to animals, cells or other laboratory systems. It can support a mechanism or hypothesis, not establish human efficacy, dose or long-term safety.
Evidence gap / no identified human drug exposure
No qualifying human drug-exposure or outcome evidence was identified within the reviewed record. This means the human evidence is missing; it does not prove either benefit or no effect.
Mixed, null or negative evidence
Relevant human evidence includes conflicting or non-beneficial findings. WhichPeps keeps those results visible instead of averaging them into a favourable headline.
Regulatory status is separate from evidence strength. “Approved”, “investigational” and “not approved” describe legal/product status in a jurisdiction; they are not themselves efficacy ratings. For the broader reading framework, see How to read peptide research without being misled.
Outcome-level evidence, not a blanket verdict
A compound may have strong evidence for one defined outcome, limited evidence for another, preclinical-only evidence for a popular claim, and strong evidence of no benefit for a different outcome. Compound pages therefore expose outcome-level records and keep the finding separate from the evidence status.
Source provenance
Primary scientific evidence
Peer-reviewed trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and preclinical studies are linked to the claim they support.
Registries
Trial registries establish protocol and status information; registration alone is not treated as a positive result.
Regulators and official product records
Approval, safety notices and product-specific regulatory facts are kept separate from efficacy evidence.
Sponsor/development sources
Useful for pipeline status and topline results, but labelled as sponsor-level information when peer-reviewed publication is not yet available.
Marketplace / community terminology
Used to resolve aliases, blends and discourse. It can document what people call something, not prove that the associated claim is scientifically valid.
Research integrity signals
Retractions, corrections and source-quality concerns remain attached to the affected evidence record rather than disappearing from the narrative.
Study selection: more than one source when the question needs it
WhichPeps does not cap a compound at one headline paper. Where multiple relevant studies exist, the public profile can use several primary studies plus regulatory or registry records to show replication, disagreement, safety, different populations and changes over time.
- Positive, negative and null results are all eligible. Sources are selected for relevance and quality, not because they support a preferred narrative.
- A newer study does not automatically erase an older study; the question is whether populations, formulations, endpoints and methods are comparable.
- Systematic reviews can summarise a field, but important underlying trials remain visible when they materially affect the conclusion.
- Regulator, label and trial-registry records answer different questions from efficacy trials and are not substituted for them.
- For blends or stacks, component studies are not counted as direct evidence for the combination unless the combination itself was studied.
Study counts refer to distinct evidence records, not duplicated citations. If two database rows point to the same underlying publication, WhichPeps suppresses the duplicate from the public count unless the source clearly reports separate trials that need separate records.
Outcome records keep direct counter-evidence/null findings separate from evidence gaps, safety or tolerability context, and regulatory or scope context. A favourable safety observation is not a “negative finding”, and lack of approval is not a null efficacy result.
Who reviews and what a review date means
WhichPeps is operated by Sid Hussain. The public evidence system records source provenance and review dates, but it does not claim an independent clinical review board. A named external scientific or clinical reviewer is credited only where that person has genuinely reviewed the material.
An evidence-review date means the scientific record for that profile was checked against the sources represented in the evidence system at that review horizon. A later typography, navigation or template change does not refresh the scientific review date.