The finder
Pick what you want to change. See who actually measured it.
Every other tool like this gives you a compound and a match score. Those scores are not measured. Ours does not exist. What you get instead is what was actually measured and where: trials in people first with the participant count, then the animal and cell work kept separate, then what people using it report, and the trials that found nothing, counted rather than dropped.
82 of the 444 compounds here have never been through a trial in people. That is worth knowing and it is not a verdict: a molecule nobody can patent has no sponsor to pay for a trial, so a thin human record is usually a fact about money rather than about the compound. Where that is the case, this says so and shows you what does exist.
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.
Or start from the compounds
Somebody handed you a stack. What is actually known about it?
Add what you are looking at and you get every outcome those compounds have been measured for in people, and then the longer list of the ones they have not.
Bone strength
Does it protect bone?
Bone density is a scan result. Fracture is an event. Trials that measured fractures are worth far more than trials that measured density, and this separates them.
2,162 people · 7 human studies · 5 compounds
- 2,039 people3 studies
2,000 New Zealand women aged 65 or older with osteopenia, randomised to four infusions of 5 mg zoledronate or saline at 18-month intervals over six years. Fragility fracture occurred in 190 on placebo and 122 on zoledronate, hazard ratio 0.63 (95 percent CI 0.50 to 0.79). Number needed to treat 15. This is the large...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2018 · 2,000 people
Adverse event analysis of that same 2,000-woman trial. Myocardial infarction in 39 women on placebo against 24 on zoledronate (hazard ratio 0.60, 95 percent CI 0.36 to 1.00). Total cancers reduced, hazard ratio 0.67 (0.51 to 0.89). Hazard ratio for death 0.65 (0.40 to 1.06, p equals 0.08), and 0.51 (0.30 to 0.87) in...
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2020 · 39 people
HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial, NCT00046254. 1,065 assigned to yearly 5 mg intravenous zoledronic acid and 1,062 to placebo within 90 days of hip fracture repair, mean age 74.5, median follow-up 1.9 years. Primary endpoint new clinical fracture: 8.6 percent against 13.9 percent, a 35 percent reduction. In the safety...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2007 · no headcount in the line
- 123 people1 study
123 elderly hip-fracture patients: gait speed improved and IGF-1 rose, but most functional measures did not, and the trial was terminated early over a congestive heart failure safety signal.
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2011 · 123 people
- no headcount stated1 study
The bone arm of RESHAW. After 12 months on 75 mg twice daily, lumbar spine bone density rose 0.016 g/cm2 versus placebo, femoral neck T-score improved 0.070, C-terminal telopeptide (a resorption marker) fell, and FRAX ten-year major and hip fracture probability dropped. The benefit was larger in women with poor bone...
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2020 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 study
Randomised, up to 24 months of oxandrolone in severely burned children with five-year follow-up. Significant improvement in whole-body bone mineral content, lumbar spine bone mineral content and density, and height velocity, with treated children showing significantly greater height velocity throughout the first two...
Shock, 2016 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 study
266 elderly and older persons assessed over six to eight years, with thymalin and epithalamin applied during the first two to three years. Acute respiratory disease incidence fell 2.0 to 2.4-fold, with reduced clinical ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, deforming osteoarthrosis and osteoporosis against control....
Neuro Endocrinology Letters, 2003 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
How this is counted
Human studies only. Animal and test-tube work never enters this ranking, because the question you asked was about a person.
A compound is listed for an outcome only when a citation on its own page states that outcome and reports a result for it. Naming it is not enough: a paper that measures testosterone and reports a result about something else does not count as testosterone evidence, which is a mistake this tool made on its first run and no longer makes.
People counts are read out of the study lines themselves and are deliberate undercounts. Where a line states no number, the study still counts as a study and adds nothing to the headcount. Counts are never added across compounds, because the same person can appear in more than one trial.
Ranking is by people measured. That is a fact about the evidence, not a judgement about the compound, and it is the only ordering this site will defend. A compound at the top of a list is the most studied, which is not the same as the best.
Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to take anything.