Methodology

What every study page contains

• Who or what was studied, the design, dose and duration where the abstract gives them.
• What it found, in our words.
• What it does not show: design limits, who was excluded, what the numbers cannot tell you.
• Funding and conflict-of-interest statements as the record states them. If none appear, the page says so.
• Links to PubMed and, where available, the free full text and DOI.

How summaries are written

Each summary is written from the study's own abstract and is never pasted from it. A summary can only say what the abstract supports. When a claim circulates that the abstract does not support, it is recorded on the study page as unverified, not repeated. Whenever an entry changes, the abstract is read again.

How identifiers are checked

The PubMed ID, DOI and PMC ID for each study come from PubMed itself, and a script compares every entry with PubMed's record (first author, year, DOI and PMC ID). That catches a wrong link. It cannot tell whether a summary matches what the paper found, which still takes a person reading it.

Study designs

The design label tells you how much weight a result can bear. It says nothing about whether the study was well done.

Meta-analysis

Pools the results of several trials. Only as reliable as the trials it includes.

Systematic review

Searches for and appraises all the studies on a question. Does not itself test anything.

Human trial (controlled)

Compares people who got the treatment with people who did not.

Human study (no control group)

No comparison group, so it cannot separate the treatment from placebo or natural recovery.

Review

Summarises other people's work. Generates no new data.

Animal study

Done in animals. Results often do not carry over to people.

Cell / lab study

Done on cells or tissue in a lab. A mechanism hint, not a clinical result.

How topic verdicts are set

Each topic page rates the evidence for each peptide or use separately, using only the studies summarised here. The rating is a judgement written by hand, not a score, and it carries a review date.

Consistent in human trials (with caveats)

Several human trials or pooled analyses point the same way, though the trials have limits.

Mixed human results

Human trials exist but disagree across outcomes.

Limited human evidence

A small number of human studies, or only small or uncontrolled ones.

Mostly animal evidence

Promising results in animals or cells; little or no controlled human data.

Not yet assessed here

This hub has not yet summarised the controlled human evidence.

What is not here yet

This hub currently holds 12 studies, mostly on oral collagen peptides and on BPC-157. It does not yet cover trials of oral marine bioactive peptides other than collagen, or prescription peptide drugs such as the GLP-1 medicines. Legal and regulatory status has its own dated page, with the limits of what it covers stated there. Absence from this site is not evidence of absence.

Independence and disclosure

This site is run by an employee of Pürblack, a peptide supplement brand, in a personal capacity. Pürblack does not fund, review or direct the site, and its costs are paid by its operator.