Evidence Methodology
This page explains how evidence levels are assigned and how PeptaBase interprets mechanistic, animal, and human study coverage across peptide records.
Evidence level assignment
Evidence labels are based on the apparent maturity of the cited research base. Compounds with mainly mechanistic or animal data are labeled more cautiously than compounds supported by broader human literature or clinical development history.
How PubMed studies are summarized
PubMed-linked studies are summarized from citation metadata and, where available, enriched abstract context. The goal is to provide journal, year, study type, and a short orientation to the paper so users can understand the reference before opening the full PubMed record.
Study mix
Where available, the dataset can track clinical trial counts, animal studies, and mechanistic studies. Those values help frame whether a peptide has mostly early-stage support or a more mature publication profile.
How evidence is reviewed
Evidence labels can be revised when new studies are linked, when dataset fields are standardized, or when review metadata is updated. This helps keep the evidence summary aligned with the visible record rather than frozen to an older snapshot of the literature.
Limitations
Evidence labels are editorial summaries, not clinical recommendations. A peptide may have published studies and still remain experimental, unapproved, or poorly standardized across formulations and routes.