Our Methodology

Our Mission

PepCodex exists to make peptide research accessible and understandable. We synthesize scientific literature so you can make informed decisions based on evidence, not marketing claims.

We do not provide medical advice, dosing protocols, or sourcing information. Our role is to organize and present what the research says—and critically, what it doesn't say.

Source Selection

We prioritize primary sources in this order:

1. Peer-reviewed human studies — Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case series
2. Clinical trial registries — ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO ICTRP
3. Regulatory documents — FDA, EMA, MHRA approval documents, safety warnings
4. Preclinical studies — Animal and in vitro research (always clearly labeled)
5. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses — When available from reputable sources

Global Coverage

We search beyond English-language databases to include international research. This includes:

• PubMed / MEDLINE (global, primarily English)
• Europe PMC (European focus, open access flagging)
• Russian databases (eLIBRARY.ru, CyberLeninka) when relevant
• Regional registries and regulatory bodies

For non-English sources, we provide translated titles and note the original language.

Evidence Grading

Every peptide dossier includes an evidence strength badge. Here's what each level means:

Citation Standards

Every factual claim in our dossiers is backed by at least one citation. We follow these rules:

• Citations link to the original source (PubMed, DOI, trial registry)
• We note whether sources are open access or paywalled
• We never cite secondary sources when the primary is available
• If we make an inference, we label it clearly as an inference with our confidence level

What We Don't Do

To maintain trust and avoid harm, we explicitly exclude certain content:

• No dosing or protocols — We don't provide instructions on how to use any peptide
• No sourcing information — We don't recommend where to buy anything
• No medical advice — We're researchers, not doctors
• No overclaims — We don't say something is "proven" unless the evidence is overwhelming

How We Update

Peptide research evolves. Our dossiers are living documents:

• Each page shows a "Last Updated" date
• Major updates (new trials, safety signals) trigger revisions
• We maintain a changelog for significant changes

How We Rate Peptides

PepCodex's earlier 1–5 rating used four parts after Community Experience was added. The stored values are historical editorial assessments. They are not formal GRADE ratings, measured treatment effects, safety ratings, or recommendations.

The four-part rating

The historical overall rating combined those four parts with the weights shown above. A later draft stored separate 0–100 Evidence and Effectiveness scores. Neither stored format is automatically promoted to a current numeric assessment.

Current assessment policy

A numeric assessment requires a compound-specific review of the source identities and the formulation, indication, population, comparator, outcome, and timepoint it describes. Until that review is documented and bound to the assessed record, the dossier shows a review status instead of historical numbers. A withheld or unreviewed score does not mean that benefit is absent. The catalogue evidence classification shown elsewhere on the site is a separate editorial field and is not a four-part or two-axis score.

Feedback & Corrections

If you find an error, outdated information, or have a source we should include, please contact us. We take corrections seriously and credit contributors.