No match scores
Peptide finder
Plate 11
Goal map
Find by outcome
36
Goal pages
1
Record
The short answer
Pick what you want to change. See every compound measured for it in people, most people first. Each one shows what the study found, and the failures are counted. 70 of 453 compounds here have no study in people of any kind.
- Compounds
- 453
- No study in people
- 70
How this ranks
No match scores
Other tools print a match percentage. Nobody measured those numbers. This page shows how many people each goal was measured in, and names the goals nobody has measured in a person.
A thin record in people is usually about who pays for trials. It is not a verdict on the compound.
What users report sits next to the trial count. It is never added into it.
What are you trying to change?
Pick as many as you like. The number on each one is how many people it has been measured in across the whole archive. So you can see where the evidence is before you choose.
Somebody handed you a stack. What is actually known about it?
Add what you are looking at. You get every goal those compounds have been measured for in people. Then you get the longer list of goals they have not.
Biological age markers
Does it change a biological age clock?
A clock is a prediction, not an outcome. Moving one has never been shown to change what happens to a person, and that limitation belongs on the result.
903 people · 3 studies in people · 2 compounds
- 01DanazolHormoneLimited. People have taken it in a published study, but fewer than 100 of them. 3 completed trials, 63 people given it.5 reported27 people2 studies
Danazol stopped telomeres shrinking, and the trial was halted early because it appeared to be working. 27 patients with inherited telomere disease took 800 mg a day by mouth, planned for two years. Everyone got the drug and there was nothing to compare against. Telomere loss slowed in all 12 patients assessable on the...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2016 · 27 people
A serious side effect surfaced years after the trial was over. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic describe pancreatitis, an inflamed pancreas, in people taking danazol for telomere biology disorders. It was published eight years after the original trial. This came out of ordinary clinical use, not from a study set up to count...
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2024 · number of people not given
- 02GDF15BiologicModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 2 completed trials, 313 people given it.3 reported876 people1 study
Higher GDF15 marked out men who died sooner, but nobody was given anything. 876 Swedish men aged 35 to 80 gave a blood sample and were then followed for up to 14 years. Those with more GDF15 at the start were roughly three times as likely to die of any cause. The pattern held in a separate set of 324 twins. This is a...
Aging Cell, 2010 · 876 people
- 03EpitalonPeptideModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 5 completed trials, 266 people given it.6 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
In a dish. The first time a lab with no link to the original group found the same direction of effect. Normal human cells grew longer telomeres, more so at higher doses. Cancer cells mostly used a different route. A November 2025 correction replaced three figures without changing the conclusions.
Biogerontology (Brunel University London), 2025 · number of people not given
- 04OSK Partial ReprogrammingBiologicPreliminary. Studied in people, but no published study has had people take it. 1 registered with no result.5 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
In normally ageing mice, not ones bred to age fast, long stretches of partial reprogramming changed the kidney and skin. The longer the treatment ran, the bigger the change. Ageing clocks read younger. Genes for inflammation, worn-out cells and stress were turned down. The authors did not claim these mice lived longer.
Nature Aging, 2022 · number of people not given
How this is counted
Studies in people only. Animal and lab work never goes into this ranking, because your question was about a person.
A compound is listed for a goal only when a study on its own page names that goal and reports a result for it. Just naming it is not enough. Say a paper measures testosterone but reports a result about something else. That does not count as testosterone evidence. This tool made that mistake on its first run, and it no longer does.
People counts come from the study lines themselves, and when in doubt they count low. If a line gives no number, the study still counts as a study but adds nobody to the people count. Counts are never added up across compounds, because the same person can be in more than one trial.
The order is by how many people were measured. That is a fact about the evidence, not a judgement about the compound. It is the only order this site will defend. A compound at the top of a list is the most studied. That is not the same as the best.
Nothing here is advice. Nothing here tells you to take anything.