Methodology
How we evaluate, rate, and present evidence across the site.
Evidence tiers
Every claim on the site is assigned to one of three tiers:
We are explicit when a peptide has little or no human evidence. We do not manufacture the appearance of evidence by overemphasizing mechanism or rodent findings.
The claim verdict scheme
On individual peptide pages, specific claims are evaluated against the published research and assigned a verdict. The verdicts give readers a quick read on what kind of evidence sits behind a specific statement:
- Established — Demonstrated by multiple Phase 3 RCTs and FDA-approved indications, or directly demonstrated in well-characterized human pharmacology studies.
- Supported — Demonstrated by smaller RCTs, consistent observational data, or replicated independent research.
- Plausible — Mechanistically reasonable and consistent with related research, but not directly demonstrated.
- Preliminary — Early human data, smaller studies, or strong preclinical signals; the picture is forming but not complete.
- Uncertain — Mixed data, methodological concerns, or insufficient research to draw a firm conclusion.
- Unsupported — The claim is widely repeated but not substantiated by the available evidence. We are direct about this when the data warrants it.
Different sections of the site use slightly different verdict labels appropriate to their content (the Evidence vs Myth section uses calibration-focused verdicts; the Stacks section uses combination-specific framing), but the underlying philosophy is consistent — every substantive claim is assigned a level of evidence the reader can scan at a glance.
Sources
Primary references are peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in PubMed. We prefer, in order:
- Multi-center Phase 3 randomized controlled trials
- Smaller Phase 2 or pilot RCTs
- Registries and prospective cohorts
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Narrative reviews from established researchers
- Case reports and case series
- Animal studies (rodent, primate, other models)
- In-vitro and cell-culture work
We cite regulatory decisions (FDA approvals, EMA approvals, shortage listings, Category 2 placements) when relevant. We cite preprints with explicit "preprint" labeling so readers know peer review hasn't completed. We cite conference proceedings with appropriate caveats. We do not cite social media, vendor marketing material, or anonymous user reports as evidence.
How each section is evaluated
The site organizes content into seven major sections, each with its own evaluation framework:
Peptides section
Each peptide page is structured around the same template — mechanism, human studies, preclinical/emerging studies, claims with verdicts, anecdotal reports (clearly labeled), administration as reported in studies, limitations, bottom-line read, FAQs, and references. The consistency lets readers navigate across compounds and compare directly.
Articles section
Long-form practical articles follow a TL;DR + structured-sections + key-takeaways + FAQ pattern. Articles are tagged by category (Comparison, Practical, Side effects & safety, Lifestyle & long-term, Frontier & pipeline) so readers can find the question-type they're looking for. Every article includes FAQ schema markup for AI-search compatibility.
Stacks section
Theoretical peptide combinations are presented with explicit framing: combination-specific human RCT evidence is generally absent for the compounds discussed, and we say so. Each stack page covers mechanistic rationale, human evidence (typically per-compound only), preclinical evidence, reported user experiences, paired benefits and risks, open questions, and an honest bottom-line read.
Evidence vs Myth section
Calibrated reads on contested claims. Each article carries a verdict label (Established / Promising / Mixed / Hype-prone / Calibration / Field-overview) and addresses both the legitimate case for and against a claim. The aim is calibration — being clear about what the evidence supports, where it is incomplete, and where the discussion has run ahead of the data in either direction.
Emerging Peptides section
Compounds are explicitly stage-marked: Phase 3, Phase 2, Phase 1, Preclinical, or Theoretical. The stage label is visible on every card and at the top of every entry so readers immediately understand how clinically advanced the compound is. Each entry follows the same structure: short description, current research status (specific trials), mechanistic rationale, available evidence, why it's interesting, limitations, community notes where relevant, and references.
Applications section
Peptides organized by goal (weight loss, recovery, longevity, cognition, sleep, gut health, vascular, sexual wellness, bone health, immune). Each application card includes an evidence chip indicating the overall research base for that category, plus 5-8 featured peptides with one-line summaries.
GLP-1 Hub
The deepest hub on the site. Covers approved obesity and diabetes drugs, emerging trial-stage candidates, head-to-head comparison articles, and practical guides. Content uses the same evidence-tier and verdict frameworks as the rest of the site.
What we treat carefully
- Single-group literature. When nearly all the positive data comes from one research lab, we say so — see BPC-157 (Sikiric group), epitalon and the broader Khavinson framework (St. Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology), and other lineage-concentrated research traditions.
- Mechanism-to-outcome extrapolations. Clear mechanism is not clinical effect. We distinguish between the two carefully, particularly when marketing language conflates them.
- Anecdotal reports. We include common reports so pages are complete, but we label them unambiguously as hypothesis-generating signals rather than evidence.
- Preclinical-to-clinical translation. Animal model success is informative but not predictive. We are explicit when a compound's claims rest on preclinical data only.
- Off-label use patterns. Common community use does not constitute clinical evidence. We describe what's used and how, but assess it against the underlying research separately.
- Cross-jurisdictional approval status. Several compounds (cerebrolysin, cortexin, Khavinson bioregulators) are approved abroad but not by the FDA. We are clear about which jurisdictions and what the evidence picture looks like in each.
Editorial independence and disclosures
Editorial decisions on this site — what we cover, how we evaluate the evidence, and how we frame claims — are made independently. We do not sell peptides. The site does not currently accept advertising from peptide vendors or manufacturers. It does not participate in affiliate-link arrangements with research peptide retailers. Where we link to primary research, the links go to PubMed, not to retailers.
Where commercial relationships exist or develop in the future (advertising, sponsorship, or other arrangements that support the operation of the site), they will be disclosed clearly so readers can evaluate the editorial alongside that context. Editorial independence from any such arrangement is the standard we hold ourselves to.
Updates and corrections
Pages list a "last updated" date. We revise when major new trials publish, when FDA or EMA status changes, or when a correction is warranted. We update existing content rather than maintaining version history — historical versions are not retained publicly.
To report a correction or factual concern, email info@modernpeptidescience.com with the URL, the specific claim in question, and (if possible) the source you believe should be cited instead. We treat all corrections seriously and respond when a substantive response is warranted.
See also
- About — who we are and how the project works
- Disclaimers — medical, legal, and safety framing
- Browse all peptides — the complete index
- Articles — practical long-form guides
- Evidence vs Myth — calibrated reads on contested claims