How We Grade Evidence
Transparency is core to Peptide Atlas. Here's exactly how we evaluate and rate the evidence behind each peptide.
Every peptide in our database is assigned an evidence level and a safety rating. These are not marketing claims — they reflect our honest assessment of the available scientific literature. We use a structured framework that considers human clinical trials, animal studies, mechanistic research, and expert consensus.
Evidence Levels
Supported by multiple human clinical trials
Some human data with consistent preclinical support
Early human data or strong animal evidence
Mostly preclinical with limited human data
Very early research, mostly mechanistic
Safety Ratings
Extensive safety data available
Some safety data, generally well-tolerated
Limited safety data, discuss with clinician
Notable risks or very limited safety data
Our Methodology
1. Literature Review
We review published peer-reviewed studies, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case reports, and systematic reviews from PubMed, Google Scholar, and specialty journals.
2. Evidence Hierarchy
We weight evidence based on study quality: large RCTs carry more weight than animal studies or anecdotal reports. We note when evidence comes primarily from preclinical research.
3. Clinician Review
All content is reviewed by board-certified clinicians with experience in peptide therapy. They verify accuracy, flag misleading claims, and add clinical context.
4. Ongoing Updates
Evidence levels are not static. As new research emerges, we update our ratings. Each peptide page shows when it was last reviewed.
Important Note
Our evidence ratings represent our best assessment of the current scientific literature. They are not FDA evaluations or medical recommendations. Individual responses to peptides vary, and all decisions about peptide therapy should be made in consultation with a qualified healthcare provider.