Scoreboard
Nothing has resolved yet. The first readout we are waiting on is due Q4 2026. A prediction only moves off Open when the trial reports the endpoint we named and we publish a verdict, win or lose.
Jump to prediction
Predictions on record
L-citrulline for erectile dysfunction
The standalone L-citrulline arm of NCT07642505 will not reach a clinically meaningful IIEF gain, roughly 4 points over placebo, even if the result comes back statistically positive.
- Readout expected
- Q4 2026
- Scored on
- IIEF change versus placebo, measured against the roughly 4-point clinical threshold set by the Menafra 2022 arginine benchmark.
Why we expect this
This is the first powered double-blind citrulline trial in erectile dysfunction, but the older arginine data already sets the bar for a meaningful change. A positive result under that bar is a partial win at best, not the retail breakthrough the category will announce.
What would prove us wrong
The standalone citrulline arm reports a mean IIEF improvement of about 4 points or more versus placebo.
Collagen peptides and “Ozempic face”
Posted results for NCT06787924 will not validate consumer claims about collagen for “Ozempic face” or skin laxity. The registered endpoints are scar and wound healing plus serum hydroxyproline, not facial volume.
- Readout expected
- 2026
- Scored on
- Registered primary endpoints (scar and wound healing, serum hydroxyproline) versus the consumer outcome the trial is being sold as.
Why we expect this
The trial completed without posted results as of August 2026, and the endpoint mismatch is already documented in our guide. We lock the call before results land so the record cannot be written after the fact.
What would prove us wrong
Posted results include a facial volume, laxity, or skin elasticity endpoint that was registered before enrolment closed, and it improves versus control.
Urolithin A (Mitopure) and sleep claims
NCT07060898 will not produce proof that Mitopure improves sleep. Sleep sits in this trial as a secondary self-report questionnaire inside a brain-health app study, not as measured sleep.
- Readout expected
- Q2 2027
- Scored on
- Primary endpoints are brain-health app measures. Sleep is a secondary questionnaire, never polysomnography.
Why we expect this
Our guide documents the endpoint hierarchy for this study. Marketing already cites “650 participants proved sleep” before any readout exists. We expect the primary analysis to stay on brain-health measures.
What would prove us wrong
Published results report objective sleep (polysomnography or validated actigraphy) as a pre-registered primary or co-primary endpoint, and it improves versus placebo.
How scoring works
A prediction is only worth reading if it can fail. Each entry carries a threshold and a registry ID before the readout, and one of five statuses after it.
- Open
- Published and waiting. The trial has not reported the endpoint we named.
- Hit
- Results landed and the claim held, including the threshold we set in advance.
- Miss
- Results landed and the claim failed. The entry stays up with what we got wrong.
- Partial
- Direction was right, but a number or an endpoint we named did not match.
- Void
- Scoring became impossible: the trial stopped, changed endpoints, or never posted.
Questions about the ledger
What is the Supplement Brief predictions ledger?
A public list of dated, falsifiable calls about clinical trials that have not reported yet. Each entry names the trial, the endpoint that decides it, and the result that would prove us wrong, so the call cannot be rewritten after the readout.
How is a prediction scored?
When the trial reports the endpoint we named, we compare the result against the threshold written in the entry. The status becomes Hit, Miss, Partial, or Void, and the scoreboard at the top of the page updates with it.
What happens when a prediction turns out to be wrong?
The entry stays online and is marked Miss with a resolution note explaining what we got wrong. Nothing is deleted or quietly edited, and the miss counts against our hit rate.
Is this investment or medical advice?
No. Predictions here are about what a trial will show, not about what anyone should take. Dosing and safety guidance lives in our guides and always belongs with a clinician.
Where this sits in our editorial record
The corrections log records mistakes we made in published guides and how we fixed them. This ledger runs in the other direction: forward-looking trial calls we are willing to be scored on in public. Our methodology explains how evidence gets into a guide in the first place.
Spotted a readout we should be scoring, or think a call here is already wrong? Email [email protected] with the registry ID.