Enhanced Studies — Compound Demand, Sentiment & Evidence Index

A cross-compound index over 72 compounds and 1681 public voices, combining monthly search demand, stance-coded community sentiment, and evidence strength. Sentiment is derived deterministically from per-voice stance coding (no model) and split by source type — professional, community, influencer — which allows the ‘experts versus forums’ comparison. Popularity is real monthly search volume, not voice counts (which are harvest-capped). Includes leaderboards for most-searched, high-demand-but-weak-evidence, and most-cautioned compounds. Read this before you cite. These are aggregated self-reports from public forums, not clinical data. Small samples (typically 6–12 logs per compound). Every figure is indicative, not representative. Selection bias is real. Testosterone reads as mostly “mixed” because its logs are dominated by TRT bloodwork-troubleshooting threads — not because Testosterone does not work. Side-effect counts reflect what users mentioned, not incidence. “Demand” is search volume, not usage. Doses are the figures stated in the logs, not frequency-normalised weekly totals. Where a signal is missing it is left null, never guessed. Coverage percentages are published alongside sparse fields. Privacy. Derived counts and distributions only: no usernames, no verbatim post text, no source URLs. An automated leak-check runs over the outputs. The raw corpus is deliberately withheld — it consists of posts by identifiable people who did not consent to republication — so the method is auditable but the pipeline is not reproducible end-to-end from the published artifacts. Educational and informational only. Not medical advice, and not an endorsement of use. Code: github.com/enhanced-studies/open-data · Method: https://enhancedstudies.com/methods/