Go back to the source.

How we review the evidence

We use selected studies, abstracts, trial records and regulatory documents. Entries now distinguish statements linked to checked source passages from references awaiting individual mapping. A source list alone does not establish support for every statement. This is an editorial reference, not a systematic review. We could not access every full paper; each entry notes relevant limits.

Source checks were assisted by AI and have not received independent expert review. A source-check date describes that specific check; the record date describes its earlier editorial context. Research stage, study quality and regulatory status are kept separate.

1. Identify the compound. Check the exact form before comparing results. Keep fragments, modified forms, mixtures, and nonpeptide compounds distinct.
2. Check the study. Identify the formulation, study setting, participants, and measured outcome. Keep cell and animal findings separate from results in people.
3. Show the limits. Include retractions, negative results, small samples, and mismatched forms. Evidence labels describe the research available, not safety or the size of an effect.
4. Keep the review date visible. Each entry has a review date. New studies or label changes may affect a summary, so check the linked source for updates.

We do not treat unverified dosing schedules, cycling instructions, or unsupported confidence scores as evidence. When a source does not match the exact compound, the entry explains the gap. Send a source or correction.