Le contenu des preuves est maintenu en anglais.

As of 2026-08-08, the atlas targets 100 high-recognition entries across four non-equivalent source classes: regulator-approved peptide active substances, clinical-stage peptides, or laboratory peptides with substantial scientific visibility, and products frequently marketed in the "research peptide" ecosystem.

Inclusion reflects scientific, clinical, regulatory, or public visibility—not an endorsement. Some marketed names refer to fragments, salts, metal complexes, mixtures, pegylated proteins, or poorly standardized products. The catalog classifies these boundary cases explicitly instead of assuming that every item sold as a peptide is a single well-defined peptide.

Inclusion funnel with safeguards
Four visibility inputs pass through scope and source review before inclusion or deferralClinical, scientific, public, and identity-boundary inputs converge on scope and source sufficiency review. Outputs retain entry type or a reason for deferral, alongside three explicit guardrails.clinical / regulatoryimportancescientificvisibilityresearch-marketvisibilityidentity boundaryvaluescope + sourcesufficiency reviewincluded withentry_typedeferred / excludedwith reasonGUARDRAILSvisibility ≠ endorsementidentity must be boundedclaims remain grade-specificentry type, source sufficiency, and claim grade remain separate records
Inclusion records visibility and research value. It does not endorse a product, collapse entry types, or grade all claims together.
Alternative textuelle

Clinical or regulatory importance, scientific visibility, public or research-market visibility, and identity-boundary value enter scope and source-sufficiency review. The result is inclusion with an entry type or deferral or exclusion with a reason. Guardrails are: visibility is not endorsement, identity must be bounded, and claims remain grade-specific.

What is in scope

Entry typeInclusion basisEvidence search emphasisRequired caveat
Approved drugA regulator-approved peptide active substance with clinical or regulatory importanceCurrent official product information, regulatory actions, pivotal studies, and post-market contextApproval remains specific to the named product, indication, population, route, jurisdiction, and date
A clinical-stage candidate with scientific or public relevanceTrial registries, early- and later-phase human studies, safety records, and regulatory decisionsInvestigation is not approval, and a studied exposure is not a recommendation
or laboratory peptideSubstantial scientific visibility or identity valueMechanistic and sources, with human evidence identified separately when it existsBiological rationale and non-human evidence do not establish patient benefit
entryFrequent visibility in the research-peptide ecosystemIdentity resolution and verification of the evidence behind marketed claimsVisibility is not endorsement, and marketed material is not assumed safe, sterile, authentic, or suitable for humans
Boundary caseA fragment, salt, complex, mixture, pegylated protein, or poorly standardized name that clarifies an identity boundarySources that can bound composition and distinguish the studied entity from the market nameAmbiguity remains explicit; no unique identity, structure, or evidence transfer is invented

The entry-type separation is an editorial safeguard, not a hierarchy of value. See How Peptide Identity and Structure Assets Are Verified for the identity boundary and the evidence-grading method for claim-specific grades.

What inclusion means

Inclusion means that an entry has enough clinical, regulatory, scientific, public, or identity-boundary relevance for a source-traceable review. It also means that the atlas assigns an entry type and records important uncertainty.

What inclusion does not mean

Inclusion does not endorse efficacy, safety, quality, legality, or human use. It does not make entry types equivalent, authenticate a marketed sample, or assign one evidence grade to every claim about an entry.

The essays Building a 100-Peptide Evidence Atlas and Research Market vs Approved Peptides provide additional context for these boundaries.

Evidence-search target

Each page is a structured narrative review of key evidence, not a claim to have captured every publication ever produced. Search dates, databases, query terms, and selection decisions must be recorded. The search emphasis changes with the entry type and exact claim, while priority is given to:

  • current official product information and regulatory actions;

  • pivotal and confirmatory controlled human studies;

  • systematic reviews and meta-analyses that identify the evidence base;

  • representative early-phase human pharmacology;

  • decisive negative, terminated, retracted, or safety studies;

  • work only when human evidence is absent or the mechanism requires it, clearly labeled as non-human.

Approved-product questions start with the current label and regulatory record; questions start with trial and development records; or laboratory entries often require mechanistic sources; and claims require verification without treating marketing as efficacy, safety, purity, or identity evidence.

Refresh policy

Approval, trial, , and legal-status claims are time-sensitive. Each carries an as_of or last_verified date and should be rechecked before publication or decision-making. Safety communications and identity/database assets are also rechecked through their authoritative records when the current workflow calls for review; the atlas does not invent one universal refresh interval.

Claim typeAuthoritative recordRefresh triggerStaleness signal
Regulatory or label statusCurrent regulator record and official product informationBefore publication or decision-making and when a regulator changes the recordThe page date predates a revised label, approval, withdrawal, or regulatory action
Trial registry and safetyCurrent trial registry, published study record, retraction or termination record, and official safety communicationA trial changes status, results appear, or a safety record changesRecruitment, completion, results, termination, retraction, or safety status no longer matches the cited record
WADA and legal statusCurrent WADA material and the relevant jurisdiction's official legal or regulatory recordBefore publication or decision-making and when a new list or rule takes effectThe cited season, effective date, rule, or jurisdictional status is no longer current
Identity and database assetsPubChem, DrugBank, UniProt, source sidecars, and the structure manifest as applicableA stable record, sequence, identifier, provenance field, or asset input is revisedThe cached identifier, checksum, sequence, or provenance no longer matches the authoritative record
Refresh clock by claim type
Four claim types return to an authoritative source for recheckingConcentric rectangular rings represent regulatory and label status, trial and safety records, WADA and legal status, and identity or database assets. No fixed interval is implied.regulatory / label statustrial registry and safetyWADA and legal statusidentity / database assetsRECHECK AUTHORITATIVE SOURCEFREQUENCY DEFINED BY POLICY / CURRENT WORKFLOW
Refresh frequency follows policy and the current workflow; the diagram does not invent a universal interval.
Alternative textuelle

Regulatory and label status, trial registry and safety records, WADA and legal status, and identity or database assets each return to an authoritative source for rechecking. Frequency is defined by policy and the current workflow rather than an invented universal interval.

Questions

Does inclusion mean the atlas endorses a peptide?

No. Inclusion reflects clinical, regulatory, scientific, public, or identity-boundary relevance and does not endorse efficacy, safety, quality, legality, or human use.

Why are different entry types kept separate?

Approved drugs, investigational candidates, endogenous or laboratory peptides, research-market entries, and boundary cases raise different regulatory, identity, and evidence questions. Keeping the types separate prevents conclusions from being transferred between them.

How does the evidence search change by entry type?

Approved-product questions prioritize current labels and regulatory records; investigational questions prioritize trial records; endogenous or laboratory entries often require mechanistic sources; research-market claims require verification without treating marketing as evidence of efficacy, safety, purity, or identity.

Which claims are most likely to become stale?

Current regulatory and label status, trial records, safety communications, WADA rules, legal status, and identity or database assets can change. Their dated records are rechecked through the authoritative source under the current workflow.