Who reviews this, and how.
Every monograph, status verdict, and explainer in our Knowledge Base and FDA Tracker is built education-first and checked against primary sources. Here's who's accountable for that, and the standards behind it.
The Peptós.LIFE clinical team
Our content is reviewed by the Peptós.LIFE clinical team, licensed clinicians and editors who check every monograph for clinical accuracy, evidence framing, and regulatory honesty, and who sign off on what each molecule's status verdict and evidence grade can and cannot claim.
Review attribution is applied to pages the team has reviewed. Where a page is awaiting review, it is labeled as maintained by the editorial team only.
How we review
- Plain-English first. Every molecule gets a does / does-not summary a non-specialist can act on, before any mechanism.
- Two signals, never collapsed. The regulatory status and the plain-English availability verdict are separate fields, checked separately against primary FDA sources.
- Evidence over volume. An honest grade A–E reflects human evidence, not popularity. A loud molecule with thin data still gets a thin grade.
- The unknowns stay visible. Every monograph names what we still don't know. We don't sand that off for conversion.
- Sourced & dated. Claims trace to citations; status traces to FDA dockets and the Federal Register, with a review date.
What would change a grade or a verdict
New placebo-controlled human trials, a published safety signal, an FDA action (a designation, a Category change, a PCAC outcome, a rulemaking), or a sourcing/quality finding. When any of those land, the affected pages are re-reviewed and re-dated, and the change is logged in the regulatory newsroom.