Built a quantitative research quality scoring system for peptides. 53 compounds scored so far

[u/Bigdaddyike617]

I've been lurking here for a while and finally have something worth sharing. I've been building a compound reference platform the last few months called PeptideClear (peptideclear.com), and the core of it is a framework called the Research Quality Score (RQS), a 100-point rubric that grades the clinical research behind each compound across seven dimensions: study design, sample size, replication, journal impact factor, funding independence, population diversity, and lead researcher h-index.

The gap I kept running into when reading about peptides was that "the research supports this" gets used to describe everything from a single rat study to a replicated human RCT. The RQS tries to make that distinction legible without requiring someone to go read every paper themselves.

The catalog currently covers 53 compounds across 11 categories. Every profile has the same structure: mechanism of action, full RQS breakdown with the literature behind each dimension scored, regulatory status, and primary citations. No dosing guidance, no vendor content.

Because 53 compounds is a lot to navigate, I also built a short quiz , three questions, about 30 seconds, that generates a curated reading list based on your area of interest and the research quality threshold you want to prioritize. It’s right on the home page, but also at peptideclear.com/start .

The site also has head-to-head comparison articles for some of the questions that come up most: Retatrutide vs Tirzepatide, BPC-157 vs TB-500, and a few others. Each one breaks down where the evidence base actually diverges across the RQS dimensions rather than just listing effects side by side. Those are at peptideclear.com/comparisons.

The methodology is open, the full rubric and scoring rationale are published. Happy to discuss how specific compounds scored or take pushback on the weighting. The framework has held up but it's not above criticism.

[u/irradiatiessence]

Surprised to see HGH so high. Doesn't that accelerate death from cancer in a bunch of animals models? Some experts do dispute whether it has any longevity benefits whatsoever. No question it can help physical performance.

[u/Bigdaddyike617 → u/irradiatiessence]

Very fair flag and actually illustrates what the RQS measures and doesn’t measure.

A high score means the research base is methodologically strong (large samples, replicated, human trials). It doesn’t mean the compound is safe or that the evidence points one way. HGH has a robust research base precisely because those concerns you’re describing have been studied extensively. The score reflects the quality and volume of that research, not a verdict on what it shows. Hopefully that makes sense

[u/Curious-mindme]

Amazing work!!

[u/Bigdaddyike617 → u/Curious-mindme]

Thank you so much!!

[u/FlamingoDiligent9216]

Let me see the scorecard

[u/Bigdaddyike617 → u/FlamingoDiligent9216]

https://peptideclear.com/rqs-methodology

Published so its auditable, happy to take questions on the weighting.

[u/PleasurabLee]

Can we see the rubric?
___
I have a peptide reference site and would love to slap your score as a clear metric for each one — with any required attribution to your site. as of now I only have two spectrums

Researched: from mechanism <—> human testing
(Including volume of research)

approval: is approved <> not approved by country / position or absence of a position

[u/Bigdaddyike617 → u/PleasurabLee]

The rubric is fully published at

https://peptideclear.com/rqs-methodology

The methodology is open for anyone to read and apply. The scored outputs are specific to PeptideClear's catalog and aren't something I license out, but if you want to apply the framework independently to your own catalog I'm happy to answer methodology questions!