Gathering the record
Relay is organizing the evidence and source boundaries.
Synthetic tetrapeptide
Livagen is a marketed name for KEDA, a short peptide studied in liver, digestive-enzyme, and cell-aging models.
60-Second Overview
Start with what it is, why it matters, what research has shown, and what remains unknown. The science follows after the orientation.
Start here. These four answers explain why the compound matters before the page introduces the deeper science.
Livagen is a marketed name for KEDA, a short peptide studied in liver-related, digestive-enzyme, and cell-aging models. It is not an FDA-approved liver treatment.
The peptide has been included in experiments asking whether short sequences can influence organ-associated enzymes or cellular aging markers. The organ-themed name does not prove liver targeting.
Animal studies examined digestive-enzyme activity in aged rats, and laboratory studies exposed cultured human cells to short peptides. Relay did not locate a modern controlled human trial showing improved liver tests, symptoms, disease progression, or clinical outcomes from administered KEDA.
Human bioavailability, liver exposure, target engagement, product identity, interaction effects, meaningful clinical outcomes, and short- or long-term safety remain unknown. Animal enzyme changes and cell markers cannot establish treatment of liver disease.
The research depth, routes, studies, and primary sources below explain how Relay knows—and where the evidence stops.
Research context
Published research has investigated this compound using the following study designs.
These records explain what researchers did. They are not instructions, recommendations, or a transferable protocol.
Published research investigated KEDA-containing interventions in aged rats and measured digestive-enzyme activity during a short preclinical treatment course.
Reported study administration—not a recommendation.
Research at a glance
Evidence depth, confidence, and route context explain how Relay knows—not what anyone should do.
Laboratory and animal evidence with limited older human-associated reports.
Research depth describes how large and mature the overall record is. It does not tell you whether the results were positive.
Human exposure, bioavailability, clinically meaningful liver outcomes, product identity, and longer-term safety.
Confidence describes how reliable and consistent the conclusions are. It can be high for one outcome and low for another.
The strongest evidence type shows what the best-supported conclusions are actually based on.
Human findings are more directly relevant than animal or laboratory results, but they still apply only to the populations and outcomes studied.
Route-specific record
These are exposures used in cited research for a specific route and population—not an instruction for an individual.
Half-life describes how long it takes the measured amount in the body to fall by half. It is not a dosing recommendation.
Evidence can change by administration method. Findings from one route should not automatically be applied to another.
Evidence boundary: No verified modern controlled human trial established clinical liver outcomes from administered KEDA. Animal enzyme changes cannot establish liver targeting, symptom improvement, disease modification, human exposure, or safety. Amounts shown describe cited research exposure—not a dosage recommendation.
Detailed evidence
Start with the strongest supported conclusion and its main uncertainty. Claim-level records below show how the evidence changes by question, population, route, formulation, and study design.
Relay did not locate a modern controlled human trial establishing clinical liver outcomes from administered KEDA.
This is the strongest supported conclusion in the current human evidence—not a summary of every claim made about the compound.
Human exposure, bioavailability, clinically meaningful liver outcomes, product identity, and longer-term safety.
Keeping the main uncertainty visible prevents an early or promising finding from looking more settled than it is.
Questions people bring to the evidence
Research questions—not promises of benefit.
This is the strongest human-evidence boundary in the current record.
Mechanistic findings explain biological plausibility; they do not establish a human outcome.
Relay keeps this uncertainty visible rather than converting it into a prediction.
The safety snapshot reflects the studied record and its limitations.
Regulatory and identity status determine how the evidence should be interpreted.
Mechanisms
KEDA studies explore transcriptional and tissue effects, but the direct administered-human evidence base is sparse and regionally concentrated.
A plausible mechanism can explain why a study was attempted. It does not prove that the compound improves a human outcome.
No single validated target is established in the current record.
Studies
Study arms are reported for transparency. They describe what researchers did in a defined record and do not transfer across identities, routes, formulations, or populations.
A later trial phase can ask a more mature question, but it does not guarantee a positive result, regulatory approval, or relevance outside the studied population.
Controlled animal study
Aged rats
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
KEDA-containing experiments evaluated digestive-enzyme activity in aged animal models.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: Animal enzyme changes do not establish human liver benefit.
Human-cell culture study
Population not stated.
Endpoints were not fully described in the current record.
Laboratory work examined short-peptide effects in cultured human cells.
Study administration: Not stated in the current record.
Limitations: No administered-human outcome evidence.
Safety snapshot
Current evidence cannot yet resolve: Human exposure, bioavailability, clinically meaningful liver outcomes, product identity, and longer-term safety.
No direct evidenceAn absence of adequate evidence is not evidence of benefit, harm, or equivalence.
Open sourceThe current record does not support a reliable common-versus-uncommon frequency split.
Evidence boundaryUnder-detected or under-reported events must not be described as rare.
No source-qualified compound-specific warning or contraindication is encoded in the current record.
Evidence boundaryNot FDA-approved; human clinical evidence for administered Livagen is not established. Human exposure, bioavailability, clinically meaningful liver outcomes, product identity, and longer-term safety.
The current record does not identify a reliable compound-specific pattern of events that caused study discontinuation.
Evidence boundaryThis is an evidence gap, not proof that discontinuations did not occur.
No compound-specific patient-facing urgent-action threshold is established in the current Relay record.
Evidence boundaryRelay does not infer emergency guidance from study discontinuations, mechanism, or incomplete adverse-event reporting.
Community
Built by the community
Every structured report adds useful context about research setup, outcomes, and unwanted effects as the community dataset grows.
Publicly anonymous by default. Your account keeps reports editable and helps reduce duplicate submissions.Sources
PMID 16075683
PMID 25051766