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.
Eyes and vision
Is there anything measured for eyes?
A small but real corner of this catalogue, and the place where thymosin beta-4's actual human trials live, which is not where people think they live.
1,643 people · 9 human studies · 7 compounds
- 1,258 people1 study
1258 patients aged 60 and over. At 12 months OAKS met its primary endpoint, with lesion growth slowed 21 percent monthly (P equal to 0.0004) and 16 percent every other month (P equal to 0.0055), while DERBY missed it, at 12 percent (P equal to 0.062) and 11 percent (P equal to 0.085). By 24 months both were...
The Lancet, 2023 · 1,258 people
- 218 people2 studies
218 participants with DME across nine arms. Posted results (December 2018): mean change in best corrected visual acuity at week 24 of +5.2 letters (1.0 mg), +2.7 (2.0 mg) and -1.5 (3.0 mg) with risuteganib, versus +7.0 with bevacizumab. No statistical comparison posted and no journal publication located. Sponsor...
ClinicalTrials.gov, Allegro Ophthalmics, 2014 · 218 people
Post hoc analysis of the 39 completers of the phase 2a. Eyes with more intact ellipsoid zone, thicker outer retina and less geographic atrophy at baseline were more likely to gain 8 letters. Exploratory, and proposed by the authors as a way to enrich future trials. NIH supported analysis.
Ophthalmology Retina, 2022 · no headcount in the line
- 85 people1 study
RHODOS. 85 patients with m.3460G>A, m.11778G>A or m.14484T>C mutations, idebenone 900 mg a day for 24 weeks, multicentre, double blind, placebo controlled. The primary endpoint, best recovery in visual acuity, did not reach statistical significance in the intention to treat population. A post hoc interaction analysis...
Brain, 2011 · 85 people
- 64 people2 studies
Phase 2b in 64 patients: 4 mg/day cibinetide significantly increased corneal nerve fiber area versus placebo; pain improved in all groups, so the pain effect was not clearly separated from placebo.
Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 2017 · 64 people
28 days of daily subcutaneous ARA 290 improved neuropathic symptoms and increased corneal small nerve fiber density in a blinded placebo-controlled trial.
Molecular Medicine, 2013 · no headcount in the line
- 9 people1 study
Small placebo-controlled Phase 2 (9 patients): RGN-259 eye drops cut ocular discomfort 35% and corneal staining 59% versus vehicle at day 56.
Cornea, 2015 · 9 people
- 9 people1 study
A 9 patient multicentre randomised double-masked placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of thymosin beta 4 eye drops in severe dry eye. At day 56 the treated group showed a 35.1% reduction in ocular discomfort and a 59.1% reduction in total corneal fluorescein staining against vehicle. This is the parent protein, as an eye...
Cornea, 2015 · 9 people
- no headcount stated1 study
What the parent peptide's evidence actually looks like: a 601-patient Phase 3 of thymosin beta-4 eye drops whose posted results show no separation from placebo on either co-primary endpoint at day 29.
ClinicalTrials.gov, ReGenTree LLC, 2018 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Mouse. Ectopic expression of Oct4, Sox2 and Klf4 in mouse retinal ganglion cells restored youthful DNA methylation patterns and transcriptomes, promoted axon regeneration after optic nerve injury, and reversed vision loss in a mouse glaucoma model and in aged mice. The benefit required the DNA demethylases TET1 and...
Nature, 2020 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Naturally aged mice. Long-term procyanidin C1 treatment reduced retinal senescent cell burden and ameliorated age-related structural and functional decline in the retina, characterised by single-cell RNA sequencing. Mouse, no lifespan endpoint.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Retinal pigment epithelium cell work relevant to age-related macular degeneration, reporting protective effects against oxidant injury. Cell culture. The eye claim that circulates for this peptide traces to work at this level, not to any patient.
Scientific Reports, 2018 · no headcount in the line
- 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.