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.
Sleep
Does it improve sleep?
Sleep gets claimed constantly and measured rarely. Where a trial used polysomnography rather than a questionnaire, that is worth a great deal more.
168 people · 4 human studies · 3 compounds
- 168 people2 studies
First Light (168 participants, 1 mg or 2 mg twice daily or placebo, 3:3:2) and Radiant Light (105 participants, 2 mg twice daily or placebo, 2:1), both 12 weeks, ages 16 to 70. Maintenance of Wakefulness Test sleep latency rose 14.3 to 19.8 minutes with oveporexton against minus 0.4 to minus 0.8 minutes on placebo;...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2026 · 168 people
Phase 2, 8 weeks, 112 randomised: 90 to four oveporexton regimens (0.5 mg twice daily, 2 mg twice daily, 2 mg then 5 mg, 7 mg once daily) and 22 to placebo. Sleep latency changes of 12.5, 23.5, 25.4 and 15.0 minutes against minus 1.2 on placebo. Insomnia in 48 percent, urinary urgency 33 percent, urinary frequency 32...
New England Journal of Medicine, 2025 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 study
Two phase 3 trials in moderate-to-severe OSA with obesity: apnea-hypopnea index fell by about 25 events per hour at 52 weeks versus placebo, supporting the Zepbound sleep apnea indication.
New England Journal of Medicine, 2024 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 study
Crossover study in young and older adults: high-dose MK-677 increased stage IV sleep by about 50% and REM sleep by more than 20% in young subjects.
Neuroendocrinology, 1997 · 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
- 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.