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.
Wound and skin healing
Does it close a wound faster?
Surgical wounds, ulcers and burns, where healing time is genuinely measurable.
68 people · 3 human studies · 2 compounds
- 34 people2 studies1 found nothing
found nothing34 participants with venous leg ulcers, three week open-label placebo run-in then four weeks of randomised double-blind twice weekly topical LL-37 at 0.5, 1.6 or 3.2 mg/mL or placebo. Healing rate constants at 0.5 and 1.6 mg/mL were about six-fold and three-fold higher than placebo, p = 0.003 and p = 0.088. Mean ulcer...
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014 · 34 people
A randomised double-blind controlled trial of LL-37 cream in diabetic foot ulcer healing. The second controlled human study of this peptide and again topical, on a wound, rather than injected for systemic immune effect.
Archives of Dermatological Research, 2023 · no headcount in the line
- 34 people1 study
First-in-man trial in 34 patients: 0.5 mg/mL topical LL-37 raised the healing rate about sixfold versus placebo, with no safety concerns.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014 · 34 people
- 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.