This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Vosilasarm does in the body
Nothing, in humans. Its human evidence is one 20-person cancer dose-finding study
RAD140 binds the androgen receptor — the same switch testosterone uses — and turns it on. In rodents it enlarges muscle fibres. In breast cancer cells it does something different and more interesting: switching the androgen receptor on turns the oestrogen receptor gene down, which is why a drug people buy for muscle was actually developed as a cancer treatment. Neither of those effects has been measured in a human being for the purpose people take it.
What happened in people
High-affinity, specific androgen receptor binding across a four-nuclear-receptor panel, with AR activation in breast cancer cells and not in prostate cancer cells
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
Its recorded molecular formula is C20H16ClN5O2, weighing 393.8.
PubChem record · 44200882 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 111 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Dose escalation for safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
NCT03088527 (first-in-human phase 1 in postmenopausal breast cancer)
How many people
20
Study design
Phase 1
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Dose-escalation design with no comparative efficacy hypothesis; no phase 2 followed
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral capsule or liquid suspension; no established human dose outside the phase 1 escalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Phase 1, first-in-human study of RAD140 in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (NCT03088527) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Triceps surae muscle weight and plantaris fibre cross-sectional area after 14 days, with and without functional overload
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
Puskas 2025 rat functional overload study
How many people
40
Study design
Preclinical, randomised, 4 groups of 10 rats
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
What a body can do day to day
What was found
RAD140 plus overload not statistically different from vehicle plus overload; RAD140 alone raised cross-sectional area versus vehicle alone; no effect on tibial cortical or trabecular morphometry
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral capsule or liquid suspension; no established human dose outside the phase 1 escalation
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Phase 1, first-in-human study of RAD140 in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (NCT03088527) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
What we know
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Vosilasarm
What a person takes: Oral capsule or liquid suspension; no established human dose outside the phase 1 escalation.
The measurement behind this step
Sold as a capsule or as a liquid in a dropper bottle labelled for research use. The doses used outside trials are not in the literature and cannot be compared with anything, because the only human dosing on record is an oncology dose-escalation whose levels are not published in a peer-reviewed paper.
Getting in
Orally bioavailable small molecule
It survives the gut and is absorbed as a tablet or a liquid, which is why it is sold as a capsule rather than an injection.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Non-steroidal oxadiazole, orally bioavailable in rodents and in the phase 1 dose-escalation. Human pharmacokinetics beyond that dose-escalation are not in the peer-reviewed literature.
The androgen receptor is inside the cell, so the molecule diffuses across the membrane before binding anything.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Passive membrane diffusion, then binding to the AR ligand-binding domain with high affinity and with specificity over oestrogen, progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors in a four-receptor panel.
Activates the androgen receptor in some tissues and not others
It switched the receptor on in breast cancer cells and left it alone in prostate cancer cells, in the same set of experiments.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Tissue-selective transactivation: AR activation in AR-positive, ER-positive breast cancer lines and no equivalent activation in prostate cancer lines, attributed to differing coregulator availability rather than to differing receptor identity.
In breast tumour cells the activated androgen receptor suppresses the gene that makes the oestrogen receptor, which is what makes it a plausible cancer drug.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
AR-mediated repression of ESR1 and of a subset of AR-repressed genes associated with DNA replication, with additive suppression when combined with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib. In skeletal muscle the corresponding programme is myofibre hypertrophy, shown in rats and never measured in people.
Tumour growth inhibition in xenografts; nothing measured in human muscle
The measurable outcome on record is smaller tumours in mice carrying human breast cancer tissue. There is no human muscle outcome of any kind.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Substantial growth inhibition of AR-positive, ER-positive patient-derived xenografts as monotherapy and in combination. In rats, increased fibre cross-sectional area in sedentary animals and no additive effect over functional overload. No human body-composition or strength endpoint has ever been reported.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In the one trial: 20 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Outside it: young men, including the 16-year-old in the myopericarditis case report, buying it as a supposedly stronger alternative to ostarine.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
The oncology programme did not progress past the completed phase 1; no phase 2 has been registered since 2020
The rat study found no additive effect of RAD140 over functional overload and no bone effect at 14 days
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Still being tested
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral capsule or liquid suspension; no established human dose outside the phase 1 escalation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as investigational; no register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Sold as a capsule or as a liquid in a dropper bottle labelled for research use.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: The doses used outside trials are not in the literature and cannot be compared with anything, because the only human dosing on record is an oncology dose-escalation whose levels are not published in a peer-reviewed paper.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
No controlled human safety dataset exists. The published human record consists of case reports: severe cholestatic liver injury, one case requiring corticosteroid treatment, and myopericarditis in a 16-year-old after a first dose. Class effects that apply by mechanism include suppression of endogenous testosterone and gonadotropins with reversible gynaecomastia and hypogonadism, and reduced HDL cholesterol. Where an approved drug would have a safety database of thousands of exposures, this compound has twenty.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral capsule or liquid suspension; no established human dose outside the phase 1 escalation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
The recorded note, unchanged: The doses used outside trials are not in the literature and cannot be compared with anything, because the only human dosing on record is an oncology dose-escalation whose levels are not published in a peer-reviewed paper.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, investigational agent. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Vosilasarm studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That RAD-140 builds muscle in humans — no human trial has ever measured muscle mass, strength or physical function with this compound
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That it is a stronger version of ostarine, a ranking derived from rodent anabolic potency assays and marketing copy rather than from any human comparison
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the rodent hypertrophy effect adds to training, when the one study designed to test that found it did not
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Vosilasarm are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The only human trial is a completed 20-patient phase 1 in breast cancer
In plain words
One registered human study exists. It gave RAD140 to 20 postmenopausal women with breast cancer to find a tolerable dose, ran from 2017 to 2020, and that is the whole human record.
What was measured
Number and size of completed human trials of RAD140
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
NCT03088527, "Phase 1, First-in-Human Study of RAD140 in Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer", sponsored by Radius Health, enrolled 20 participants, started 23 October 2017 and completed 24 September 2020. It is a dose-escalation study in androgen-receptor-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. No phase 2 followed. There has never been a registered trial of RAD140 for muscle mass, strength, physical function or body composition in humans, at any dose, in any population. Every claim about what it does to human muscle is an extrapolation from rodents.
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088527 (completed 24 September 2020)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Preclinical: activates AR in breast cancer cells and suppresses the ESR1 gene
In plain words
In laboratory models of breast cancer, turning the androgen receptor on with RAD140 turned the oestrogen receptor gene down and shrank tumours grown from patient tissue.
What was measured
Tumour growth inhibition in AR-positive, ER-positive patient-derived xenografts; ESR1 suppression
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Yu et al. profiled RAD140 against four nuclear receptors and found high affinity and specificity for AR. It activated AR in breast cancer cells but not in prostate cancer cells. Oral administration substantially inhibited growth of androgen-receptor-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive patient-derived xenografts, with AR activation and suppression of the ER pathway including the ESR1 gene itself; combining it with palbociclib improved efficacy further. This is a well-executed preclinical package and it is the basis of the phase 1. It is not evidence about muscle in people.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
In rats it added nothing on top of the training stimulus
In plain words
When rats had their muscles overloaded to force growth, adding RAD140 did not make the muscles grow more than overload alone. It only increased fibre size in the rats that were doing nothing.
What was measured
Muscle weight and fibre cross-sectional area with and without functional overload; tibial micro-CT
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Puskas et al. randomised male Sprague-Dawley rats, 10 per group, to RAD140 or vehicle with or without functional overload of the plantaris, for 14 days. Muscle weight in the RAD140 plus overload group rose but was not statistically different from vehicle plus overload. Fibre cross-sectional area showed the same pattern: RAD140 significantly raised cross-sectional area in the sedentary control group, and did not add to overload. Micro-CT of the tibia showed no effect on cortical or trabecular bone morphometry at 14 days. A drug that works in the absence of a training stimulus and adds nothing in its presence is a specific and testable finding, and it is the opposite of how the compound is marketed.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Severe cholestatic liver injury, repeatedly, in published case reports
In plain words
Several independent teams have published cases of young men developing jaundice and severe liver injury after taking RAD-140 bought online, some needing steroid treatment to recover.
What was measured
Published cases of biopsy- or biochemistry-confirmed drug-induced liver injury
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Perananthan and George reported severe liver injury after RAD-140 taken for body building. A 2025 report in ACG Case Reports Journal describes cholestatic drug-induced liver injury from RAD-140 that required corticosteroid treatment. A further case appears in Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center) in 2026. Reports of SARM-associated liver injury in general, in which RAD-140 features, appear across Cureus, JPGN Reports and Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie between 2024 and 2026. These are case reports and cannot give an incidence, but the pattern across independent centres and countries is consistent: cholestatic or mixed injury, weeks to months after starting, in young men with no other cause found.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Myopericarditis in a 16-year-old after the first dose
In plain words
A cardiology journal reported a 16-year-old boy who developed inflammation of the heart muscle and its lining after taking one dose of RAD-140.
What was measured
Cardiac MRI and troponin-confirmed myopericarditis after a single exposure
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Schwartzman et al. reported myopericarditis in a 16-year-old boy following the first dose of RAD-140. The authors note that these compounds are widely used by physically active young adults and that the adverse effects, which can be life-threatening, are not well characterised. A single case cannot establish causation and the report does not claim to. What it does establish is that the compound is being taken by minors, that a serious cardiac event was temporally associated with a first exposure, and that no safety database exists against which to judge whether such an event is expected or exceptional.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It was not among the SARMs actually found in tested products
In plain words
When 44 products sold as SARMs were analysed, the SARMs found were ostarine, LGD-4033 and andarine. RAD-140 was not one of them, even though it is heavily marketed.
What was measured
That a product labelled RAD-140 contains RAD-140 — an assumption the only chain-of-custody analysis of this market gives no support to
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Van Wagoner et al. found one or more SARMs in 23 of 44 internet products (52%), and identified those compounds as ostarine, LGD-4033 or andarine. A further 39% of products contained ibutamoren, GW501516 or SR9009 instead. RAD140 does not appear in the list of compounds detected. The sampling was done in 2016, before RAD-140 reached its current popularity, so this is not evidence that RAD-140 products are empty today. It is a reason to treat the identity of the compound in any given bottle as unestablished — which, for a substance whose entire human record is one 20-person trial, means the exposure people describe is doubly unknown.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The SARM with the thinnest human evidence and the heaviest case-report burden: one completed 20-patient phase 1 in breast cancer, no human muscle trial ever, and published reports of severe cholestatic liver injury and of myopericarditis after a single dose in a 16-year-old.
Recorded evidence blocks (0)
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 1 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.