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.
Energy and fatigue
Will I feel less tired?
One of the most commonly reported effects and one of the least reliably measured, because fatigue scales move easily on placebo.
5,095 people · 7 human studies · 7 compounds
- 4,038 people1 study
TREAT: 4,038 people with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and anaemia randomised to darbepoetin alfa targeting 13 g/dL or to placebo with rescue below 9 g/dL. Death or a cardiovascular event, hazard ratio 1.05 (0.94 to 1.17); death or end-stage renal disease, hazard ratio 1.06 (0.95 to 1.19). Fatal or non-fatal...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2009 · 4,038 people
- 728 people1 study
The largest human dataset: 28 Russian clinical centres, analysis on 728 patients with psychoautonomic syndrome and asthenic disorders, 50 to 100 mg per day for 28 days. Responder rates 76.0% on CGI-S and 90.8% on CGI-I, adverse effects in 3%, discontinuation in 0.8%. There is no placebo arm. A 90.8% response rate on...
Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii Imeni S.S. Korsakova, 2010 · 728 people
- 218 people1 study1 found nothing
found nothing218 participants, phase 3, randomised and placebo controlled. Both primary endpoints missed. The six minute walk difference was minus 3.2 metres, favouring placebo, and the paper carries a Class I evidence classification that elamipretide does not improve walking distance or fatigue at 24 weeks.
Neurology, 2023 · 218 people
- 82 people1 study
82 participants, three months, randomised and double-blinded, 2,000 mg oxaloacetate daily against control. Fatigue fell by more than 25 percent from baseline in the treated group against roughly 10 percent in controls, with the between-group comparison significant at p equals 0.0039. About 40.5 percent of the treated...
Frontiers in Neurology, 2024 · 82 people
- 26 people1 study
Live bee stings, up to 20 per session three times weekly for 24 weeks, versus no treatment, in 26 people with relapsing MS. No reduction in new gadolinium enhancing MRI lesions, T2 lesion load, relapse rate, disability, fatigue or quality of life. No serious adverse events. Academic trial, Netherlands.
Neurology, 2005 · 26 people
- 3 people1 study
Three male volunteers dosed subcutaneously for two weeks: increased pigmentation, mild nausea at most doses, somnolence and fatigue at 0.03 mg/kg, and spontaneous penile erections lasting 1 to 5 hours after dosing.
Life Sciences, 1996 · 3 people
- no headcount stated1 study1 found nothing
found nothingThe T-Trials. Treatment raised testosterone into the mid-normal range for men aged 19 to 40. Sexual activity, sexual desire and erectile function all improved significantly. Vitality did not improve on the fatigue scale. The proportion improving 6-minute walking distance by at least 50 m did not differ in the Physical...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2016 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- no headcount stated0 studies
- 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.