Loading
Loading
Every peptide in our research index is evaluated against a 7-dimension, 100-point scoring framework. This page explains exactly what we measure, how points are assigned, and what each evidence band means.
The peptide research space contains a huge range of evidence quality — from FDA-approved compounds with thousands of RCT participants, to research chemicals with nothing but rodent data. Grouping these into a single "research compound" category misleads people about how much weight to give any specific finding.
Our Research Quality Score (RQS) makes that distinction explicit. A compound with an RQS of 85 and one with an RQS of 12 are categorically different — and the score makes that visible at a glance.
How scores map to plain-English evidence tiers.
Multiple well-designed human trials, independently replicated, published in credible journals. This tier is rare in the peptide space — most compounds here are FDA-approved or have advanced clinical programs.
Human evidence exists but is limited in scale, replication, or methodological rigour. Direction of effect is likely reliable but magnitude and generalisability remain uncertain.
Early-stage human data or mixed study quality — directional but not conclusive. Compounds in this tier often have strong mechanistic rationale and animal data that outpaces the available human evidence.
Primarily animal or observational data. Insufficient to draw reliable human conclusions. Community use is widespread relative to the evidence base.
Minimal or no credible research base in humans. May have interesting preclinical signals but cannot support confident claims about human outcomes.
Seven dimensions, 100 points total. Each dimension is scored independently based on the best available published evidence.
Study Design
The foundational question: what kind of evidence exists?
Sample Size
Larger, well-powered trials produce more reliable conclusions.
Replication
Independent reproduction of findings is the cornerstone of scientific reliability.
Journal Impact Factor
Publication venue signals peer-review rigour and editorial standards.
Funding Independence
Industry-funded research has documented bias toward favourable outcomes.
Population Diversity
Findings from narrow populations (young male athletes, single ethnicity) generalise poorly.
Researcher H-Index
A proxy for the track record and credibility of the investigators.
Animal evidence isn't penalised — it's absent
For compounds without human trials, the RQS reflects that gap honestly. Animal evidence may be substantially stronger than the score implies — but we score what exists in humans. This applies to BPC-157, TB-500, Ipamorelin, LL-37, Dihexa, Humanin, Follistatin-344, 5-Amino-1MQ, MOTS-c, and others.
Russian-language research
Semax, Selank, Epitalon, and Pinealon have meaningful published research bases — but primarily in Russian-language journals with lower Impact Factor scores under Western publishing standards. Lower RQS scores for these compounds reflect the publishing system, not necessarily the quality of the underlying science. Both Semax and Selank are registered prescription medicines in Russia.
Scores are estimates, not verdicts
The RQS is a tool for comparison and orientation, not a clinical judgement. New trials are published continuously, and scores are updated as the literature evolves. A low score does not mean a compound is ineffective — it means the evidence base is thin.