Expert tier
Attributable, cited, ranked
Clinician protocols and named practitioner sources, graded high, medium, or low. Carries a citation back to the originating document. This is the only tier permitted to drive consensus and conflict detection.
Not open
to the public
The experiment
already ran.
We read the results.
Somewhere between a clinical trial and a rumour sits the largest body of real-world compound data that exists: what people actually took, at what dose, and what happened next. PepAxiom reads 1,625,352 of those accounts and resolves them into structured evidence on 1,231 compounds.
Fig. 1
Reported dose distribution, one compound, one indication
In the
ledger
Nine numbers, none of them rounded up
Counts as of the last consolidation pass.
- Anecdotal records read
- 1,625,352
- Compound-level mentions extracted
- 575,896
- Compounds catalogued
- 1,231
- Under continuous tracking
- 76
- Protocols from vetted sources
- 469
- Synthesised compound dossiers
- 204
- Structured insight records
- 1,187
- Compound-to-biomarker links
- 545
- Co-use pairs mapped
- 794
Method
How a rumour becomes a record
Three passes, in order. A claim that does not survive all three does not enter the ledger.
-
i Collect wide
We read across a broad spread of public communities where people compare notes in the open. No single platform, no single vocabulary, no single demographic. Each corpus is kept provenance-distinct from collection through to display, so a signal that only exists in one place can never masquerade as consensus.
-
ii Resolve to entities
People do not write in schemas. Names arrive as slang, misspellings, brand names, blend nicknames, and abbreviations that collide with unrelated compounds. Every one is resolved to a canonical entity, and doses are parsed out of ordinary prose, including the reconstitution arithmetic people do in their heads.
-
iii Weigh, then separate
Every record carries a credibility tier that follows it everywhere. Volume is counted but never promoted into authority. Where the crowd and the clinical literature disagree, the disagreement is the output. We surface the conflict rather than averaging it into a number that describes nobody.
The load-bearing rule
Volume is not evidence.
Most tools that read community data pour everything into one average and hand you a number. That number is worse than nothing, because it looks like an answer. In PepAxiom, expert-sourced evidence and community-aggregate consensus are stored separately, scored separately, and rendered on surfaces that never touch. You always know which one you are reading, because they do not look alike.
Two tiers
Community aggregate
Counted, never promoted
What large numbers of people independently report doing. Genuinely useful, and genuinely not the same kind of thing. Rendered in its own visual register so it can never be mistaken for clinical guidance, no matter how large the sample gets.
Behind
the gate
Most of this is not public
What is on this page is the outline. The engine itself is internal, and stays that way for now.
- Compound dossiers Restricted
- Reported dose distributions Restricted
- Conflict detection Restricted
- Biomarker panels Restricted
- Stack co-use graph Restricted
- Protocol library Restricted
- Longitudinal signal monitor Restricted
Request
access
Tell us what you would do with it
Access is granted case by case, mostly to clinicians, researchers, and people building something serious on top of it. A real sentence about your work gets a real reply.
- Reply
- From a person, not a sequence
- Access
- Read-only, scoped to what you need it for
- Your details
- Not stored here, not passed on