Methodology
How PeptiBrief evaluates evidence
Atlas maintains separate scores for scientific evidence, safety confidence and community observation. Anecdotes are never combined into scientific scores.
Scientific evidence scale
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1/5 | Very weak — theory, in-vitro, sparse animal data or anecdote. |
| 2/5 | Preliminary — animal evidence or early observational data. |
| 3/5 | Limited human data or mixed early evidence. |
| 4/5 | Moderate human evidence, replicated or clinically plausible. |
| 5/5 | Strong human evidence, high-quality trials or systematic reviews. |
Evidence hierarchy
- Systematic reviews / meta-analyses of human studies.
- Randomised controlled human trials.
- Observational human studies (confounding acknowledged).
- Case reports and case series.
- Animal studies (species labelled, human claims avoided).
- In-vitro / lab studies (mechanistic only).
- Anecdotes / community reports (observational, hypothesis-generating).
- Marketing claims (not evidence).
Editorial workflow
- Topic proposed and structured entity created.
- References added and evidence type labelled.
- Evidence and safety scores assigned with rationale.
- Senior reviewer approves high-risk pages.
- Page published with review date and revision log.
- User corrections triaged and reviewed transparently.
Community submission handling
- Submission received with explicit consent.
- Automated spam and safety screen.
- Anonymisation and data validation.
- Aggregate statistics updated after moderation.
- Individual publication held for human moderator review.
- Unsafe advice, supplier promotion, personal data or unverifiable claims are removed.