Source comparison
Comparison Table: BPC-157 Research Power by Model Type
Gastric Ulcer Protection 1.2–1.8 (large) 40–60% 12–18 Undersizing based on dramatic pilot results; failing to account for scoring subjectivity Best-powered model. Large effects and established protocols make this the most statistically robust endpoint for init
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- Gastric Ulcer Protection
- 1.2–1.8 (large)
- 40–60%
- 12–18
- Undersizing based on dramatic pilot results; failing to account for scoring subjectivity
- Best-powered model. Large effects and established protocols make this the most statistically robust endpoint for initial BPC-157 characterization
- Tendon Repair (14-day)
- 0.6–0.9 (moderate-large)
- 25–35%
- 20–28
- Using 10–12 per group (adequate only for very large effects); not accounting for measurement error in tensile testing
- Moderate power achievable with realistic sample sizes. But requires precise biomechanical testing and standardized injury induction
- Ligament Healing
- 0.5–0.8 (moderate)
- 30–45%
- 26–40
- Scaling directly from tendon studies without adjusting for higher variability; composite scoring without validation
- Higher variance than tendon models. Underpowered studies are common, leading to false negatives that underestimate BPC-157 efficacy
- Bone Defect Repair
- 0.7–1.1 (moderate-large)
- 35–50%
- 18–30
- Inadequate imaging standardization; pooling data across defect sizes; ignoring non-normal distributions
- Imaging precision dominates variance. Studies using validated micro-CT protocols achieve better power than those relying on radiographic scoring
- Wound Closure (dermal)
- 30–50%
- 18–26
- Measuring area only without histological confirmation; not controlling for wound contraction vs re-epithelialization
- Moderate power feasible. But composite endpoints (area + tensile strength + histology) require larger samples than single-metric studies