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.
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.
3,025 people · 13 studies in people · 6 compounds
- 01Thymosin Beta-4PeptideStrong. At least two finished studies in people, and at least 1,000 people who took it. 5 completed trials, 1,382 people given it.9 reported1,382 people4 studies
The biggest trial of these eye drops came out flat as well. Seven hundred people with dry eye used the drops or a dummy solution, and after two weeks both groups had improved by the same amount. Everybody getting better together is what you see when the improvement is not coming from the drug. A trial this size would...
ClinicalTrials.gov, ReGenTree, LLC, 2021 · 700 people
A large trial of thymosin beta 4 eye drops found nothing. It gave 601 people with dry eye either the drops or an identical dummy solution. A month in, eye discomfort and the staining that shows surface damage were no better on the drug. On discomfort the drug group was fractionally worse. This is one of the two...
ClinicalTrials.gov, ReGenTree, LLC, 2018 · 601 people
The main measures in this small trial came out even. Seventy two people with dry eye used the drops or a dummy solution for four weeks, and neither of the two things the trial was built to measure separated. In a chamber where the air was dried out deliberately, the drug group reported less discomfort, and staining in...
Clinical Ophthalmology, 2015 · 72 people
- 02PegcetacoplanPeptideStrong. At least two finished studies in people, and at least 1,000 people who took it. 3 completed trials, 1,258 people given it.3 reported1,258 people1 study
The eye injection slowed the damaged area from spreading and did nothing for anyone's sight. 1,258 people aged 60 and over took part in two identical trials, one of which hit its one year target and one of which missed. By two years both showed the damage growing roughly a fifth more slowly on treatment. Vision itself...
The Lancet, 2023 · 1,258 people
- 03RisuteganibPeptideModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 2 completed trials, 263 people given it.218 people2 studies
Put head to head against a standard eye drug, this one came off worse. Two hundred and eighteen people with swelling in the retina from diabetes were split across nine groups. After six months, sight had improved most in the group given the standard drug. The best risuteganib dose did less, and the highest dose left...
ClinicalTrials.gov, Allegro Ophthalmics, 2014 · 218 people
This is a second look at the same thirty nine people, done after the trial ended. It asked which eyes had improved, and the answer was the eyes in better shape to begin with. Those with more surviving retina gained the most lines on the chart. The authors suggest picking patients like this for future trials. Looking...
Ophthalmology Retina, 2022 · number of people not given
- 04IdebenoneSupplementModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 5 completed trials, 732 people given it.85 people1 study
Idebenone failed the main question in this trial, and the approval rests on what came afterwards. 85 people with an inherited cause of sudden blindness took a high daily dose or a dummy for 24 weeks, and nobody involved knew which. Best recovery of vision, the thing the trial was built to measure, was not clearly...
Brain, 2011 · 85 people
- 05ARA-290PeptideLimited. People have taken it in a published study, but fewer than 100 of them. 5 completed trials, 95 people given it.7 reported73 people4 studies
The larger trial showed a change in the nerves and failed to show a change in the pain. Sixty-four patients with sarcoidosis took 4 mg a day or a dummy injection. The area of tiny nerve fibres in the cornea grew on the drug. But pain got better in every group, including the dummy one, so there is no way to tell the...
Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 2017 · 64 people
Every objective measure in this small trial stayed flat. Nine people with swelling at the centre of the retina injected cibinetide daily for three months, and eight finished. Their vision did not improve. Neither did retinal thickness, retinal sensitivity or tear production. The only thing that rose was how they rated...
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020 · 9 people
A month of daily shots improved nerve symptoms and, for once, changed something a machine could see. Patients with sarcoidosis and nerve fibre loss injected ARA 290 or a dummy under the skin for 28 days, and nobody involved knew which. Symptoms improved, and the density of tiny nerve fibres in the cornea went up. That...
Molecular Medicine, 2013 · number of people not given
- 06GLOW blendBlendLimited. People have taken it in a published study, but fewer than 100 of them. 2 completed trials, 22 people given it.9 reported9 people1 study
The parent protein helped severe dry eye, in nine people, as an eye drop. Some got drops with it and some got the same drops without it. After eight weeks the treated eyes were more comfortable, and the damage on the surface of the eye had more than halved. Nine people is very few. And this was an eye drop of the full...
Cornea, 2015 · 9 people
- 07OSK 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 mice, switching on three of the Yamanaka genes in the nerve cells at the back of the eye made those cells look younger. The chemical tags on their DNA went back to a young pattern. Damaged optic nerves regrew. Sight came back in mice with glaucoma and in old mice. The benefit needed two enzymes, TET1 and TET2,...
Nature, 2020 · number of people not given
- 08Procyanidin C1SupplementAnimal or lab only. Only animal or lab studies on this page. No study in people yet. 2 animal studies, no human study.2 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
In old mice. Long-term treatment cut worn-out cells in the eye and eased age-related decline in how the eye is built and works. Mouse only, and it did not look at lifespan.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024 · number of people not given
- 09SHLP2PeptidePreliminary. Studied in people, but no published study has had people take it. 2 human studies where nobody was given it.6 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
In a dish. Cells from the back of the eye, the kind that fail in age-related vision loss, were protected from oxygen damage. The eye claims made for this peptide go back to work at this level. No patient was involved.
Scientific Reports, 2018 · number of people not given
- 10SkQ1Small moleculePreliminary. Studied in people, but no published study has had people take it. 1 human study where nobody was given it.4 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
- 11TB-500PeptidePreliminary. Studied in people, but no published study has had people take it. 1 registered with no result.9 reportednumber of people not given0 studies
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.