Bronchogen Peptide: 4 Residues, 3 Papers, 0 Human Trials

A PubMed search on the name returns roughly 12 records. That figure gets repeated as though it described a literature.

Read the titles and most concern bronchogenic cysts and bronchogenic carcinoma: a neonatal cyst diagnosed by ultrasound in 1989, a laparoscopic extirpation in 2006, a carcinoma case in 1988. Unrelated conditions sharing a word stem. The count is a property of the search, not of the evidence.

Three papers. The 2011 one is also the source for the sequence.

ClinicalTrials.gov returns exactly 1 record for the name, and at a glance it reads like a human trial.

It is NCT00746759, “Airway Epithelium Gene Expression in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: AEGIS IDE”, sponsored by Allegro Diagnostics. Three fields settle what it is. Study type: observational. Listed intervention: a diagnostic device, marked in the record as not used as an intervention. Purpose: finding gene expression signatures in smokers that flag lung cancer earlier than imaging.

Allegro used the name BronchoGen for a diagnostic test. The registry matched the string, not the substance.

So the count of registered human trials of this peptide is 0, and the count of published human results is also 0.

That forecloses the calculation this site normally performs. A concentration in mg/mL is exact arithmetic once you have a labelled mass and a volume, but it only means something if a quantity has been established somewhere. For this compound no quantity has been established in a person, so there is no figure for the arithmetic to land on. The rat work states amounts per kilogram of animal body weight in a defined induced model, and per-kilogram animal figures do not convert across species.

A fuller reference on the compound and how it is sold is available in this guide to the bronchogen peptide.

Both take under a minute and both apply to any compound in this category.

In a literature search, read titles rather than the result count. Word stems inflate counts for anything with a common medical root, and this compound is a clean example: about 75 percent of its apparent literature is a different disease.

In a registry search, read study type and lead sponsor before you read the NCT number. Observational plus a diagnostics company is not an interventional trial of a peptide, whatever the search result implied.