Two real, honest tools to help you apply what you read on this site: decoding the regulatory-status language you'll see everywhere, and learning to actually read a listing on ClinicalTrials.gov. Never a dosing calculator, a diagnostic tool, or anything that substitutes for a licensed provider.
Every compound in our Peptide Library is labeled with one of the tiers below, exactly as stated on its own page — no softer or stronger than what the evidence actually supports. Tier assignment is a direct readout of each compound's own FDA/regulatory-status section, not a separate editorial call.
A specific product, in a specific formulation, was reviewed by the FDA against a specific proposed use and found to have benefits that outweigh known risks — for that use only. It is not a blanket approval of the compound for any other use, dose, or population.
In our library: Semaglutide, Tirzepatide, Tesamorelin, PT-141 (Bremelanotide)
In active human clinical trials, but the approval process isn't complete. Promising early results are not the same thing as proven safety and efficacy.
In our library: Retatrutide
Either had a real FDA approval that was later discontinued for business reasons (not safety), or went through genuine human clinical trials that were stopped without ever reaching approval. Meaningfully different from compounds that were never tested in people at all — and different from each other, so read each compound's own page for which applies.
In our library: Sermorelin, MK-677 (Ibutamoren)
Studied mostly or only in cells and animals, or too early in human research to draw real conclusions — despite sometimes being discussed online as if the science were settled.
In our library: BPC-157, TB-500, MOTS-c, KPV, CJC-1295, Ipamorelin, Epitalon (Epithalon), Thymosin Alpha-1
Regulated (if at all) as a cosmetic ingredient rather than reviewed by the FDA as a drug — a genuinely different regulatory category, not a lesser version of drug approval.
In our library: GHK-Cu (Copper Peptide)
Related to (but distinct from) regulatory status: language you'll see on peptide product listings, and what it does and doesn't tell you. General information, not a claim about any specific seller.
Describes how a product is marketed, not what people actually do with it. It does not mean the product has been reviewed for human safety, purity, or dosing accuracy, and it does not make retail sale for human use lawful.
Tells you a sample was tested by somebody other than the seller — it doesn't tell you what was tested for, how rigorously, how often, or whether the results are public. Worth asking all four questions before treating this as a safety guarantee.
True of almost every compound in some sense — a single small study counts. Ask what was studied (the exact compound and dose), on whom (humans or animals), how many subjects, and whether it was published and replicated.
Means prepared by a compounding pharmacy rather than manufactured as an FDA-approved drug product. Compounded products are not FDA-approved, and the FDA has specifically flagged some peptides as raising safety concerns in a compounding context.
Describes a manufacturing quality standard for the facility, not FDA approval or clinical evidence for the specific product made there. A well-run facility can still produce an unapproved, unstudied compound.
A walkthrough of the fields you'll actually see on a ClinicalTrials.gov study listing, in plain language. Definitions below follow ClinicalTrials.gov's own registration guidance, not our paraphrase of what we assume they mean.
Where the study actually is right now: Not yet recruiting, Recruiting, Active, not recruiting, Completed, Terminated, or Withdrawn. A study can sit in "Recruiting" for years before it ever reports a result — being listed is not the same as being finished, and finished is not the same as successful.
For drug trials: Early Phase 1 through Phase 4, reflecting how far along the process is — small early-safety trials (Phase 1) look very different from large trials designed to confirm efficacy (Phase 3). Device and behavioral studies are often labeled "N/A," which is normal, not a red flag.
Interventional studies actively give participants a treatment; observational studies just watch and record. Enrollment is the number of participants — targeted if the study hasn't finished, actual if it has. A 12-person Phase 1 safety study and a 3,000-person Phase 3 trial are not comparable evidence, even though both are "in a clinical trial."
Allocation is how participants were assigned to groups (randomized vs. not). Masking is who didn't know who got what — participants, caregivers, investigators, and outcome assessors can each be blinded or not. More blinding generally means less room for bias to creep into the result; "no masking" or "open-label" is a real category, not a red flag, but it does mean the result deserves a bit more scrutiny.
Who's actually funding and running the study — a university, a government agency (like the NIH), or a company that may eventually sell the product being tested. Not a reason to dismiss a result on its own, but worth knowing, the same way you'd want to know who funded any other study you're weighing.
The primary outcome measure is the specific, pre-declared thing the trial is actually designed to test — not just "does it work," but exactly what's being measured and when. Eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion) tell you exactly who the results can and can't be generalized to — a trial in healthy 25-year-olds doesn't necessarily tell you much about a 60-year-old with other health conditions.
Field definitions adapted from ClinicalTrials.gov's own study-registration guidance (via Columbia University's public ClinicalTrials.gov Registration and Results Guide). For any compound in our library, its own page links directly to a live ClinicalTrials.gov search for that compound — that registry is the source of truth, not a static summary on our site.
