Methodology
Peptide Facts exists to answer one question well: what does the published research actually say about each compound? This page explains how every article on this site is produced, what standards it must meet before it publishes, and what happens when the evidence isn't there.
Where the information comes from
Every research claim on this site traces to a primary study indexed on PubMed, the National Library of Medicine's database of biomedical literature. Articles are written from retrieved studies — not from memory, secondhand summaries, forum discussion, or marketing material.
Review articles, editorials, commentaries, and letters are excluded from the evidence base. They may inform background framing, but no specific claim on this site is sourced to an opinion piece or a summary of someone else's work. Claims come from the studies themselves.
When a compound is known by more than one name, we search all true synonyms — SS-31's clinical literature is published under "elamipretide," Thymosin Alpha 1's under "thymalfasin" — so the evidence picture reflects the full literature, not just the name a vendor uses. Related but chemically distinct compounds are never merged: a study of full-length Thymosin Beta-4 is not presented as a study of TB-500, and where confusion is likely, the article says so explicitly.
How studies are classified
Every retrieved study is classified before it can support a claim:
- By model: human trial, human observational, animal, or in vitro. A finding from a rodent model is described as a rodent finding — never blurred into a statement about people.
- By design: randomized controlled trial, open-label study, retrospective review, pilot, case series. A retrospective chart review is not called a trial.
- By weight: sample sizes are reported when the study discloses them. "A study of 12 patients" and "a phase III trial in 1,879 participants" are different kinds of evidence, and our articles say which one they're citing.
What we flag that most sites don't
Source concentration. When a meaningful share of a compound's evidence comes from a single research group or a single journal, the article states this plainly. Independent replication matters, and its absence is part of the evidence picture.
Research recency. When a compound's literature is decades old and hasn't been substantially revisited — as is true for some compounds covered here — the article says so, rather than letting "studied since the 1970s" imply ongoing momentum that doesn't exist.
Blends. Products that combine multiple peptides are covered through their individual components. No published study has examined most such combinations, and every blend article states this directly.
When we don't publish
Articles are gated by evidence thresholds. A "what is it studied for" article requires a minimum number of primary studies; claims about human outcomes require actual human data. When a compound's literature doesn't clear the bar for a given article type, that article is not written. A smaller honest article — or no article — is the outcome, not a padded one.
We do not invent citations. If a specific study can't be identified with confidence, the claim it would have supported is not made. Every citation on this site carries its PubMed ID and can be verified directly.
What this site is not
Peptide Facts is a research reference. It does not provide medical advice, dosing guidance, or administration protocols, and nothing here is a recommendation for human use. The compounds covered are, with limited exceptions noted per article, not approved by regulatory authorities for clinical use. Descriptions of what a compound has been "studied for" are statements about the research literature — not claims about what it does or should be used for.
Who publishes this site
Peptide Facts is published by BioMax Research, a supplier of research-use-only compounds. Articles note where a covered compound is available; those mentions are plainly labeled and never alter the evidence standards above. The research summaries on this site say what the literature supports — including where it is thin, dated, or concentrated in a single source — regardless of whether that makes a compound look promising.