In the database, every peptide carries a row of dots, from one to five. It is tempting to read them as a report card: more dots is better. That is not what they are for. The dots show how much research has been done on a compound, in other words how much is known, and not how good or how desirable something is. How the scale is built, and how to read it, follows below.
The ladder beneath the dots
The first crash course showed an evidence ladder. Research builds up in steps: from a hypothesis, to research in cells (in vitro), to research in a living organism (in vivo), and finally to research in humans.
Each step up means more certainty. And far from everything reaches the top step.
The dots are that ladder, made finer. They mainly split the top rung, research in humans, further, because that is where the difference lies between one small signal and broad, repeated research.
In short. The dots are not a report card but a finer rendering of the evidence ladder. They mainly split research in humans out further.
The five levels
The scale has five levels. Each level describes the state of the evidence, with a short, fixed explanation.
One dot · Early research. The first exploration: a hypothesis, tested in cells or in theory. No research in living organisms yet.
Two dots · Preclinical foundation. Multiple studies in cells and in animals point the same way. Research in humans is not there yet.
Three dots · First human signal. Alongside the preclinical work, there is a first datapoint from humans: small, or not yet structured. A beginning, not a confirmation.
Four dots · Emerging human research. At least one structured study in which the compound was given to humans, with structured outcomes. Human research is getting underway.
Five dots · Extensively clinically studied. Broadly studied in humans, across multiple independent studies. The most-researched level, the reference point the rest of the scale reads against.
The leap the dots add sits between levels 2 and 5. That is where it becomes visible whether humans are involved yet, and how solid that human research is.
In short. Each level describes the state of the evidence, not the value of a compound. The difference between two and five dots lies in how far humans are involved.
Why five dots does not mean “proven”
This is the heart of it. Five dots means “most studied”, not “it works” or “it is approved”.
The highest level holds compounds that have been studied extensively in humans. Some carry a positive result; others have been studied broadly without an effect being demonstrated. The label describes the volume of the research, not the outcome.
Two things follow, and they hold at once. When in doubt, Peptalis keeps to the lower level: better too cautious than too certain. And a low level is not a rejection: it means there is still little research, not that something has been refuted.
In short. The dots are a map of how far the research has come, not a verdict on how good something is. How much is known, not how desirable it is.
How to use it
When reading a compound page, the dots work as a compass. At a glance, it is visible whether something is an early hypothesis or carried by broad human research.
Anyone who reads on will find the details beneath the dots: the studies, the mechanism and the open questions. The dots show where on the ladder a compound sits; the text beneath tells the story.
Read further
The first crash course explains the evidence ladder beneath this scale; the second explains why the evidence stays scarce for many peptides.
Peptides Crash Course →Why good peptide research is scarce →This article explains the evidence-classification system and makes no statements about effects in humans or animals.
Compounds in this article
- BPC-157 · In stock · Batch PEP-BPC-2026-01 · HPLC 98.96% · released 31 Aug 2026 · Research profile · View in catalogue
- MOTS-c · In stock · Batch PEP-MOT-2026-01 · HPLC 99.27% · released 31 Aug 2026 · Research profile · View in catalogue
For laboratory research use only. Not for human use.