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.
Tendon, ligament and injury healing
Does it heal a tendon faster?
The claim BPC-157 is sold on. Check how much of the evidence under it was measured in a person rather than a rat.
0 people · 0 human studies · 0 compounds
- no headcount stated0 studies
In rats with transected Achilles tendon, daily BPC 157 improved biomechanical load to failure, functional index scores and collagen formation versus saline.
Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 2003 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Mouse. Using the p16-3MR transgenic model after anterior cruciate ligament transection, selective elimination of senescent cells attenuated post-traumatic osteoarthritis, reduced pain and increased cartilage development, reproduced by intra-articular injection of a senolytic molecule in transgenic, non-transgenic and...
Nature Medicine, 2017 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated0 studies
Human periodontal ligament stem cells exposed to AED, KED, Lys-Glu and AEDG. The combination of all four peptides and KED alone raised GAP-43 and nestin expression. Notably the effect the authors highlight is for KED and for the mixture, not for AED on its own, and the setting is cell culture.
International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, 2019 · 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
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.