01
Evidence stays traceable
Material scientific statements remain connected to governed source records and stable identifiers such as PMID and DOI when available.
One clear standard
How WPF evaluates evidence
Science, regulation, and lived experience belong in the same learning destination—but never in the same evidence bucket.
This guide replaces five repetitive methodology pages. The full safeguards remain; the path to understanding them is shorter.
The standard in 60 seconds
Three rules protect the record
02
Different evidence stays different
Human, animal, in-vitro, review, protocol, regulatory, and observational information are shown in distinct lanes.
03
Unknowns stay visible
Missing data, limitations, conflicts, stale sources, and unresolved research questions are displayed instead of filled with assumptions.
Scientific review
From discovery to a maintained record
Review is a chain of documented decisions, not a single badge. Each peptide page should show what is known, how it was checked, and when it needs another look.
- 01
Discover
Find candidate literature and official records.
- 02
Structure
Capture identity, design, population or model, outcomes, and limitations.
- 03
Classify
Separate human evidence, preclinical evidence, context, and observation.
- 04
Review
Check sources, contradictions, certainty, and publication state.
- 05
Maintain
Date the review, monitor changes, and preserve corrections.
AI-assisted work can
Organize source metadata, study design, populations or models, interventions, outcomes, limitations, contradiction cues, and proposed evidence classifications.
Accountable approval remains separate
Automation does not independently grant publication approval, scientific-conclusion approval, or promotion eligibility. Review state is shown explicitly.
Evidence passport · WPF-EMM-1.0
Maturity is context, not a verdict
The score describes the development and review state of the represented evidence base. It is not a probability of efficacy, safety, truth, scientific consensus, or regulatory approval.
What can cap maturity
Missing human intervention evidence, weak study design, poor review coverage, stale sources, and unresolved conflicts. Better evidence may lower a rating when it reveals disagreement.
MATURITY
Human Relevance
MATURITY
Study Design
MATURITY
Evidence Breadth
MATURITY
Consistency
MATURITY
Governance Quality
MATURITY
Uncertainty Resolution
INTEGRITY
Source Recency
INTEGRITY
Regulatory Coverage
INTEGRITY
Claim Traceability
One destination · distinct lanes
Human experience is never hidden
Readers deserve the formal research and an honest view of what people report. The page presents both, clearly labeled, so lived experience is respected without being mistaken for controlled evidence.
Human evidence
Human trials, observational research, and other human data are labeled by study design and population.
Preclinical evidence
Animal, in-vitro, and mechanistic findings remain visible without being presented as demonstrated human outcomes.
Human experience
Community reports are preserved and summarized when privacy rules permit. They can reveal recurring experiences, but recurrence alone does not prove causation.
Regulatory status
Jurisdiction matters
Status is shown by authority, jurisdiction, product or indication when applicable, and source date. It supplies legal and public-health context; it is not proof of efficacy or safety.
Citations
Claims lead to sources
Stable identifiers, source-level review states, and duplicate-safe records let readers inspect what supports a material statement.
Unknowns
Absence is stated
“Not found,” “not reviewed,” and “not established” are meaningful states. They are not silently converted into a negative or a claim.
Corrections · provenance · versioning
The record can change without erasing history
Material corrections are documented rather than silently rewritten. Reproducible exports retain generation metadata and source identifiers, so downstream readers can establish which dataset version they used.
Current public framework
Version 1.0
- Evidence classification framework established
- Citation verification workflow established
- Observational archive separation established
Governed source network
Source count alone is never the standard. WPF uses canonical identifiers and the authority of the underlying source to preserve provenance across literature, trials, regulation, chemistry, and identity.
| Source | Role | Authority | Identifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed | Literature | U.S. National Library of Medicine | PMID |
| Crossref | Literature | Crossref | DOI |
| ClinicalTrials.gov | Trial Registry | U.S. National Library of Medicine | NCT number |
| Clinical Trials Information System | Trial Registry | European Medicines Agency | CTIS trial number |
| FDA | Regulatory | U.S. Food and Drug Administration | application or label identifier |
| European Medicines Agency | Regulatory | European Medicines Agency | EMA medicine or procedure identifier |
| ChEMBL | Chemistry | EMBL-EBI | ChEMBL ID |
| UniProt | Protein Identity | UniProt Consortium | UniProt accession |
Machine-readable contract: /api/research/infrastructure
WPF provides research information, not medical advice. Evidence maturity is not a treatment recommendation, and regulatory context does not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Terms & medical disclaimer