Evidence Methodology

Database at a Glance

The RethinkPeptides research database is a comprehensive publicly accessible peptide research collection. As of March 2026:

How We Rate Evidence Strength

Every study in our database receives one of three evidence strength ratings based on its design, sample size, and replicability.

Study Type Hierarchy

Not all study designs carry equal weight. We classify every study by its design type, ranked here from strongest to weakest in terms of causal evidence.

1. Meta-Analysis — statistically combines results from multiple studies to derive pooled conclusions
2. Systematic Review — comprehensive search and critical appraisal of all available evidence on a question
3. Randomized Controlled Trial — participants randomly assigned to treatment or control groups
4. Longitudinal Cohort — follows a group over time to track outcomes and exposures
5. Cross-Sectional — measures variables at a single point in time across a population
6. Case-Control — compares individuals with a condition to matched controls
7. Observational — researchers observe without intervention or manipulation
8. Review — narrative overview of existing literature (not systematic)
9. Pilot Study — small-scale preliminary study to test feasibility
10. Animal Study — research conducted on non-human subjects
11. Case Report — detailed description of a single patient or small group

How We Select Studies

We do not attempt to index all peptide research. Instead, we curate studies that are directly relevant to our content pillars. Inclusion criteria:

• Published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed by PubMed or a comparable database
• Directly relevant to at least one of our controlled topic tags
• Cited or referenced in at least one RethinkPeptides article (current or planned)
• Available in English or with an English-language abstract

We prioritize recent research (published within the last 10 years) but include older landmark studies when they remain the best available evidence on a topic.

Tag Taxonomy

Every study in the RethinkPeptides database is assigned one or more controlled topic tags. These tags are mapped to research pillars that organize our article content.

Tags are assigned during the editorial processing stage. Each study receives tags based on its primary research topic, methodology, population studied, and key findings. Tags are never inferred from titles alone — they are assigned after review of the study abstract and methodology.

How Summaries Are Written

Every study summary in our database follows a consistent structure: what the study found, why it matters, key numbers, methodology, and limitations. Summaries are:

• Structured drafting — written using our internal editorial framework to ensure consistent formatting and plain-English readability across all entries
• Editor-verified — every summary is checked against the original publication for accuracy before publishing
• Framework-driven — written following our internal writing framework that prioritizes practical takeaways, honest limitation reporting, and accessible language

Summaries are not a replacement for reading the original study. We always provide direct links to PubMed and DOI so readers can access the full text.

Study-Article Linking Methodology

Every study in the database is linked to relevant articles using a multi-stage process that ensures comprehensive, accurate connections between research and educational content.

• Tag-based matching. Studies and articles share the same controlled tag vocabulary. Primary matches are generated automatically based on overlapping tags.
• Relevance scoring. Each study-article link receives a relevance score based on tag overlap density, evidence strength, and study type. Higher-quality studies with more tag matches rank higher.
• Manual curation. High-impact studies — particularly meta-analyses and systematic reviews — receive manual review to ensure they are linked to all relevant articles, including edge cases that automated matching may miss.

Quality Assurance

Before any content is published, it passes through automated quality checks designed to catch errors, inconsistencies, and incomplete metadata.

• Automated preflight checks — verify formatting consistency, frontmatter completeness, and structural integrity for every article and study summary before publication
• Structural validation — confirms that all required fields (title, summary, evidence strength, study type, tags, publication year, journal) are present and correctly formatted
• Metadata completeness — verifies SEO metadata, schema markup, canonical URLs, and publication/modification dates are present on all pages
• Link validation — checks that PubMed links, DOI references, and internal cross-references resolve correctly

Data Access

We believe research data should be accessible. Our research database is available for download in CSV and JSON formats under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

You may share and adapt this data for any purpose, including commercial use, provided you give appropriate credit to RethinkPeptides. Download links are available on the Research Data Download page.

Update Frequency

The RethinkPeptides research database is updated on a rolling basis as new studies are identified and processed through our editorial pipeline. Articles are reviewed when significant new research emerges in their topic area.

We do not commit to a fixed update schedule because research publication is unpredictable. Instead, we prioritize responsiveness to significant new findings, particularly meta-analyses and large RCTs that may change the evidence landscape in a topic area.

How We Handle Corrections

If you find an error in any study summary — a misquoted statistic, an incorrect evidence rating, a broken link, or any other inaccuracy — we want to know about it.

Email corrections to corrections@rethinkpeptides.com with the study ID and a description of the issue. We review all submissions and publish corrections within 7 days when warranted. All corrections are logged in our changelog.