How ClinPep sources its data

Every monograph follows the same structure:

• Mechanism of action — derived from primary mechanistic papers (in vitro, animal model, or human pharmacology studies)
• Clinical evidence — organized by use case, with strength flags:
  • Strong — multiple human RCTs, peer-reviewed, replicated
  • Limited — small human trials, observational data, or single RCT
  • Preclinical — animal or in vitro evidence; no controlled human data
• Dosing — pulled from published research dose ranges, never "internet consensus." When ranges aren't well-established in literature, we say so.
• Side effects + contraindications — reported in research where known, theoretical mechanism-based concerns where research is thin
• Bottom line — honest 2-3 sentence summary including evidence quality

We currently publish 59 peptide monographs. Coverage depth varies — the top ~10 most-trafficked peptides (BPC-157, TB-500, semaglutide, tirzepatide, ipamorelin, sermorelin, CJC-1295, GHK-Cu, MOTS-c, retatrutide) get the most detailed treatment. Some research compounds are leaner because the literature is thinner. A small number of stubs that didn't meet our threshold for "publishable quality" are temporarily unpublished while we expand them.

We currently maintain 648 citations across all monographs. Sources:

• PubMed — peer-reviewed papers, indexed via PMID, retrievable directly
• ClinicalTrials.gov — registered trials, indexed via NCT ID
• FDA — approved drug labels via openFDA
• Clinical practice guidelines — Endocrine Society, AUA, AACE, etc.

Each citation includes title, authors, journal, year, and a direct link to the source. Per our last enrichment pass, 97% of citations have full title and source URL, 77% have author lists, and 75% have abstract metadata. The remaining gaps are a mix of older clinical trial entries and citations from sources outside PubMed; we fill these in as we re-review monographs.

We do not generate citations with AI. Every citation in ClinPep is a real, retrievable reference. If you find one that doesn't resolve, that's a bug — please report it.

Each monograph also has a plain-language version, toggleable via the view selector. These rewrites preserve every citation from the clinical version and pass through the same evidence-strength framing — they're not marketing copy. The voice is direct; we don't pad with hedging or sell.

The plain-language pipeline runs against the clinical source content; the clinical version is the source of truth. Both are available to all users — the toggle is a presentation preference, not a tier-gated feature.

We currently track a curated set of peptide-drug interaction pairs. This dataset is intentionally limited — we'd rather have a few well-sourced pairs than hundreds of hallucinated ones. Coverage is expanding through clinician review, with each new entry requiring a real citation (PubMed, FDA, or pharmacology textbook reference) before publishing.

Important: if you're using a peptide alongside a medication that isn't in our database, that does not mean it's safe — it means we haven't reviewed it yet. Talk to a clinician.

Symptom-to-peptide mappings are curated against published research. We don't claim a peptide "treats" anything — only that there's published evidence linking it to that area. Evidence strength is flagged on each result. Symptoms that should redirect to clinical care (chest pain, acute neurological symptoms, etc.) are excluded entirely.

• Each monograph carries a last_reviewed timestamp
• Top-10 peptides re-verified quarterly
• Full audit annually
• New research that changes a recommendation triggers an update; users see changed monographs flagged for 30 days

• Not medical advice
• Not a prescriber
• Not exhaustive — coverage gaps exist and we list them honestly
• Not a substitute for clinical judgment

If you find an error, an unsupported claim, or a citation that doesn't resolve, email contact@clinpep.com. We treat data quality issues with priority.