Correction log
A public log of corrections published on Peptide Authority — the factual error, the page affected, the date corrected, and a link to the corrections process.
Last reviewed:
This is the public log of corrections to Peptide Authority content. It exists separately from the corrections policy: the policy explains how we handle errors when they are reported, and this log lists the corrections we have actually published.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Tesofensine vs Semaglutide
What was wrong: The comparison gave tesofensine's TIPO-1 result as "~12.8%" weight loss at the 0.5mg dose.
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Astrup et al., Lancet 2008, PMID 18950853), weight loss exceeded diet plus placebo (2.0%) by 9.2% at 0.5mg and 10.6% at 1.0mg over 24 weeks (mean totals of about 11% and 13%). The comparison table, summary and FAQ now give both doses.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
AOD-9604 vs Tesofensine
What was wrong: The comparison gave tesofensine's TIPO-1 result as "~12.8%" weight loss at the 0.5mg dose.
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Astrup et al., Lancet 2008, PMID 18950853), weight loss exceeded diet plus placebo (2.0%) by 9.2% at 0.5mg and 10.6% at 1.0mg over 24 weeks (mean totals of about 11% and 13%). The comparison table, summary and FAQ now give both doses.
- CitationCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Ipamorelin
What was wrong: A study reference titled "Ipamorelin: First Selective Growth Hormone Secretagogue" linked to PubMed record 10601960, an unrelated 1999 paper on IGFBP-1 in obese children.
How it was resolved: The reference now links to the paper it describes — Raun et al., "Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue", Eur J Endocrinol 1998 (PMID 9849822) — and its summary was rewritten from that paper's abstract.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Retatrutide
What was wrong: A "Retatrutide Effects on Hepatic Steatosis" reference reused the PubMed record of the phase 2 obesity trial (PMID 37366315) and gave liver-fat figures (up to 86% reduction; 93% resolution) that the liver substudy does not report. The same 86% figure also appeared on the retatrutide vs tirzepatide comparison and in two blog posts.
How it was resolved: The reference now links to the liver substudy (Sanyal et al., Nat Med 2024, PMID 38858523). Every affected figure now matches that paper's abstract: at 24 weeks liver fat fell by up to 82% from baseline (12 mg), and 86% of participants on 12 mg reached normal liver fat.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Tesofensine
What was wrong: The TIPO-1 trial summary attributed the trial's largest weight-loss figure ("up to 12.8 kg / 13%") to the 0.5 mg dose.
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Astrup et al., Lancet 2008, PMID 18950853), over 24 weeks mean weight loss exceeded diet plus placebo (2.0%) by 4.5% (0.25 mg), 9.2% (0.5 mg) and 10.6% (1.0 mg). Both affected passages on the page were rewritten to match, and the same wrong figure was corrected on a symptom-guide page that also cited it.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
SS-31 (Elamipretide)
What was wrong: The MMPOWER-3 trial summary and a related FAQ said the trial 'did not meet primary endpoint... but showed improvements in some secondary measures'.
How it was resolved: Per the published trial (Karaa et al., Neurology 2023, PMID 37268435), both co-primary endpoints (6-minute walk test and PMMSA fatigue score) failed to reach significance, and because of the pre-specified hierarchical testing plan, secondary endpoints were not formally tested. The paper states this is Class I evidence that elamipretide does not improve the 6MWT or fatigue at 24 weeks. The summary, FAQ, and nearby discovery-history text were rewritten to match.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
MK-677 (Ibutamoren)
What was wrong: The Copinschi et al. sleep study was described as a "study in 12 young men".
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Copinschi et al., Neuroendocrinology 1997, PMID 9349662), the high-dose sleep results came from 8 young subjects (18-30 years, sex not reported), with a separate cohort of 6 older adults (65-71). The study summary and FAQ were rewritten to state the correct sample and the dose/timepoint the figures apply to.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
ARA-290 (Cibinetide)
What was wrong: Multiple passages said ARA-290 "significantly increased intraepidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD)" in the sarcoidosis small-fibre neuropathy trial.
How it was resolved: Per the full text (Dahan et al., Mol Med 2013, PMID 24136731), IENFD did not change significantly in either the ARA-290 or placebo group; it was corneal nerve fibre density that improved significantly with ARA-290 versus placebo, alongside improved patient-reported symptoms and 6-minute walk distance. All affected passages on this page and on the neuropathy symptom-guide page were rewritten to match.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Tirzepatide
What was wrong: The SURMOUNT-4 study summary said patients switched to placebo regained "approximately half" the weight lost during the tirzepatide lead-in.
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Aronne et al., JAMA 2024, PMID 38078870), the 36-week lead-in produced 20.9% mean weight loss, and the placebo arm regained a mean of 14.0% by week 88 — around two-thirds of the lead-in loss, not half. The same figure was corrected on the VK2735 vs Tirzepatide vs Retatrutide blog comparison.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
PACAP
What was wrong: The PACAP-38 migraine-induction study summary said migraine-like attacks occurred in "15% of healthy controls".
How it was resolved: Per the trial abstract (Schytz et al., Brain 2009, PMID 19052139), migraine-like attacks occurred in 2 of 12 (17%) healthy subjects, and only during the infusion/hospital phase, unlike the delayed attacks seen in migraine patients. The summary was rewritten to state the correct proportion and timing.
- EvidenceCorrected 25 September 2026View page →
Leptin
What was wrong: The congenital leptin deficiency study summary referred to "rare patients" and described "landmark studies" (plural).
How it was resolved: The cited paper (Farooqi et al., NEJM 1999, PMID 10486419) is a case report of a single child. The summary was rewritten to describe it as a single-child case report.
What we treat as a correction
An entry is added to this log when a factual error has been identified and the page has been updated to correct it. We categorise corrections as:
- Regulatory — incorrect statement about UK law, MHRA enforcement, NICE position, or NHS access pathway. Highest-priority correction class; usually fixed within 48 hours of being reported and verified.
- Clinical — incorrect statement about a peptide's known mechanism, indication, contraindication, or safety signal.
- Evidence — misrepresentation of a study's findings, sample size, design, or conclusions.
- Citation — broken, mis-attributed, or retracted source. We do not silently re-cite a different paper without noting the change.
- Editorial — material framing error not covered by the above (e.g. an inadvertent buyer-guide tone on a page that should have been evidence-only).
What we do NOT log here
- Typos, formatting fixes, or minor copy edits.
- Content additions or expansions that didn't involve correcting a prior factual error (those appear in the evidence update log).
- Regulatory landscape changes that prompted us to update a page (those appear in the regulatory update log).
- Routine scheduled reviews where no factual error was identified.
How to report a suspected error
See the corrections policy for the report process. Regulatory and clinical errors are treated as urgent.