Our Methodology

How we research, verify, and present peptide evidence with integrity.

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:

High Evidence

Multiple high-quality human RCTs with consistent results. Clear safety profile from substantial clinical experience.

Moderate Evidence

Human studies exist but with limitations: smaller sample sizes, shorter follow-up, or inconsistent results across studies.

Low Evidence

Limited human data. Evidence primarily from case reports, preclinical studies, or very early-phase trials.

Very Low Evidence

Minimal or no human data. Evidence is theoretical, mechanistic, or limited to animal/in vitro studies.

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

Each peptide in our library receives a multi-dimension evidence rating across three key dimensions, producing a weighted overall score.

The Three Dimensions

40%

Research Depth

Volume and quality of research literature. Ranges from theoretical or no studies (1) to extensive Phase 3 RCTs with multiple meta-analyses (5).

25%

Global Coverage

Geographic diversity of research. Ranges from single country or language only (1) to global Phase 3 trials with multiple independent research groups worldwide (5).

35%

Mechanism Plausibility

How well-understood the mechanism of action is. Ranges from unknown or theoretical (1) to established, textbook-level mechanism with extensive direct evidence (5).

Overall Score

The overall score is a weighted composite: (Research Depth × 0.4) + (Global Coverage × 0.25) + (Mechanism Plausibility × 0.35), rounded to the nearest 0.5.

Score Thresholds

Overall Score Label Meaning
4.0 – 5.0 High Evidence Extensive human trials, global research, well-established mechanism
3.0 – 3.9 Moderate Evidence Some human data, multi-country research, supported mechanism
2.0 – 2.9 Low Evidence Limited human data, narrow research base, proposed mechanism
1.0 – 1.9 Very Low Evidence Theoretical or minimal data, single-source research

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.