Rung 2 of 7
Human observational
A study of humans in which exposure was not assigned by the investigator, but a comparison is available — between groups, or against a documented baseline.
Last updated
Qualifies
- A defined human population with stated inclusion criteria.
- A comparison group, or a within-subject baseline measured before exposure.
- Follow-up duration and loss to follow-up reported.
- Confounders named, whether or not they were adjusted for.
Does not qualify
- No comparison of any kind — that is a case series, rung 3.
- Self-reported use with no verification of what was actually taken. Grey-market compounds frequently are not what the label says.
- Surveys run by a seller on their own customers, at any sample size.
- Aggregated forum or social-media posts. See 'What is not evidence' below.
What this rung does not license you to say
Association is not effect. A rung 2 claim may never be phrased causally on this site — not 'improves', not 'reduces', not 'causes'. The wording must survive the possibility that the association is entirely confounded.
For example A registry cohort reporting outcomes among people prescribed a GLP-1 agonist, compared with matched non-users.
Claims currently on this rung
The claim index is generated from the record set and is not built yet.
When it is, this section lists every claim across all 196 records sitting at
human_observational — which is what makes the ladder auditable rather than decorative.