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.
Skin, wrinkles and elasticity
Does it actually do anything for skin?
Skin trials are usually small, short, and funded by whoever sells the product. That is not a reason to ignore them, it is a reason to read who paid.
816 people · 9 human studies · 7 compounds
- 538 people1 study
Whole purified venom, not melittin. 538 patients with knee osteoarthritis randomised 1:2 to histamine control or 100 mcg venom in 15 dermal injections at acupuncture points weekly for 12 weeks. WOMAC pain improved 1.1 points more than control (95% CI 0.3 to 2.0, p = 0.001) and physical function 3.1 points (p =...
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2019 · 538 people
- 93 people1 study
93 women, 12-week split-face trial: pal-KTTKS significantly reduced wrinkles and fine lines versus placebo moisturizer.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2005 · 93 people
- 60 people2 studies
60 subjects, 4 weeks: 48.9% subjective anti-wrinkle response versus 0% with placebo; roughness parameters decreased.
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2013 · 60 people
Original report: Ac-EEMQRR-NH2 mimics SNAP-25 to interfere with SNARE assembly; topical use reduced wrinkle depth in a small study.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2002 · no headcount in the line
- 60 people1 study1 found nothing
found nothing60 subjects randomised 3 to 1 to argireline or placebo applied to peri-orbital wrinkles twice daily for four weeks. Subjective global assessment gave total anti-wrinkle efficacy of 48.9% for argireline against 0% for placebo. Objective analysis of silicone skin replicas found roughness parameters decreased in the...
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2013 · 60 people
- 41 people1 study
41 women aged 30 to 65 with moderate photodamage used 0.5 or 1.0 percent idebenone lotion twice daily for six weeks. With the 1.0 percent formula, graders scored a 26 percent reduction in roughness and dryness, 29 percent reduction in fine lines and wrinkles, 37 percent increase in hydration and 33 percent global...
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2005 · 41 people
- 24 people2 studies
24 healthy subjects wore a hyaluronic acid microneedle patch containing acetyl octapeptide-3 on one eye and a hyaluronic-acid-only placebo patch on the other for 28 days. The active side showed better eye-wrinkle improvement, lower transepidermal water loss and improved elasticity with no adverse effects. As in the...
Annals of Dermatology, 2024 · 24 people
12-week study of a multi-ingredient patch containing acetyl octapeptide-3 reported 25.8% fewer fine lines; not attributable to SNAP-8 alone.
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2020 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 study
At about one year, 8 of 10 (80%) POMC-deficiency and 5 of 11 (45%) LEPR-deficiency participants lost at least 10% of body weight, with hunger scores down 27% and 44%; hyperpigmentation and injection-site reactions were near-universal.
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2020 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Cultured human dermal fibroblasts. 20(S)-Rg3 reversed replicative senescence by restoring ATP and the NAD+ to NADH ratio and modulating Akt, mTOR and sirtuin signalling; the 20(R) isomer did not. Reversal of senescence, not clearance of senescent cells.
Journal of Ginseng Research, 2020 · 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
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.