Peptide education
Semax
ACTH(4-10) analog · ACTH(4-7) Pro-Gly-Pro · Met-Glu-His-Phe-Pro-Gly-Pro
Semax is a seven-amino-acid fragment of the ACTH hormone, sequence MEHFPGP, developed in Russia and registered there as an intranasal medicine for stroke and optic nerve disease. That clinical identity is the part most English-language sellers skip. What circulates online is a different Semax: a nootropic people spray or inject for focus, mood, and brain fog, usually at far lower doses and increasingly by a subcutaneous route that no published human study has tested.
The real human Semax evidence is old Russian stroke and optic nerve work, and it is almost entirely intranasal. The focus-and-brain-fog reputation, and the subcutaneous route clinics now promote, are running ahead of anything tested in people.
Overview
Quick answer
Parent Semax is different from N-Acetyl Semax Amidate and other Semax derivatives. It also does not mean one uniform product: Russian intranasal medicinal products, clinic-compounded nasal sprays, injectable clinic products, and research-market vials can all use the Semax name while carrying different route, quality, sterility, and regulatory assumptions.
What is it?
Semax is a synthetic heptapeptide cut from the ACTH sequence, written MEHFPGP. Russia registered it as an intranasal medicine; everywhere else it is an unapproved spray or vial, and products carrying the name may have little in common with what was studied.
What do people use it for or talk about?
The studied uses are narrow: acute ischemic stroke, stroke rehabilitation, and optic nerve disease, all in Russian clinical literature. The discussed uses are much wider: focus, attention, brain fog, mood, stress, fatigue, and nootropic stacks. People buy it for the second list; the first list is what was actually tested.
What route patterns do sources report?
Three different worlds. Russian stroke schedules used 1% intranasal solutions in the milligram-per-day range for about 10 days. Nootropic users report roughly 200 to 900 mcg intranasally per day, sometimes up to 3000. Clinics and forums describe 100 to 300 mcg subcutaneous injections. No U.S. label backs any of these, and a schedule from one world does not transfer to another.
Is subcutaneous Semax better than intranasal Semax?
Nobody has run that comparison in humans. Injection gives a more exact dose and skips nasal runoff and congestion, but Semax still has to survive the bloodstream and reach the brain. The only route with human CNS literature behind it is the nose.
How should the route claims be compared?
Ask what was studied, by which route, in which product. Intranasal has human stroke and optic nerve trials plus rat brain-exposure work. Subcutaneous has clinic habit and forum reports. And a route claim only holds if the product holds: a Russian pharmacy spray, a compounded spray, and a research-use vial are three different objects.
Reported practice
Commonly reported protocol
Intranasal nootropic community ranges. Community-reported patterns, not verified by controlled human trials and not a use recommendation. Full use-pattern detail
Evidence
Evidence snapshot
Older Russian-language human studies reported Semax in acute hemispheric ischemic stroke and later rehabilitation settings, including BDNF, motor-performance, and Barthel-index outcomes.
A PubMed-indexed Russian-language clinical trial compared intranasal drops, endonasal electrophoresis, and control groups in optic nerve disease. That supports route-specific clinical interest, not a broad vision-enhancement claim.
Rat studies reported brain and blood exposure after intranasal Semax, neurotrophin gene-expression effects, and ischemia-related immune gene-expression changes. These findings explain interest in nasal CNS delivery; routine human nootropic benefit is a separate claim that has not been shown.
The route-comparison paper involved intranasal and intraperitoneal administration in rats. It is relevant to route-dependent biology, but it is not a human subcutaneous study.
Direct human subcutaneous Semax pharmacokinetic, efficacy, or head-to-head route-comparison evidence is not available in the cited sources.
FDA compounding materials and bulk-substance safety materials make product identity, impurities, sterility, route, and finished-product controls central to any Semax discussion outside a regulated finished product.
Claims
Common claims vs evidence
| Claim | Human evidence | Mechanistic evidence | Anecdotal evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semax helps after ischemic stroke. | This is the clearest human area in the Semax literature. The 1997 acute hemispheric ischemic stroke study and the 2018 rehabilitation paper reported neurologic recovery, BDNF, motor-performance, and Barthel-index signals in studied patient settings. | Rat ischemia and neurotrophin work gives a plausible CNS-recovery rationale, including BDNF/TrkB-related signaling and changes in immune or inflammatory gene expression after ischemic injury. | Online discussion often expands stroke and neuroprotection language into general brain-repair claims, but the human evidence is attached to specific stroke literature, not broad wellness use. | The stroke and rehab papers are worth discussing, but they are too narrow to turn Semax into a general brain-repair peptide. |
| Semax improves cognition, focus, attention, or brain fog. | The current literature does not include a strong modern human cognition trial. Older and small cognition signals appear in the surrounding literature, but the evidence remains weaker than for the stroke and optic nerve rows. | Intranasal animal exposure, neurotrophin signaling, monoaminergic hypotheses, ischemia transcriptomics, and the rat route-comparison paper make CNS interest plausible. | Forums, Reddit-style reports, clinics, and vendors commonly describe Semax as a focus, mental energy, attention, and brain-fog peptide. Intranasal reports often emphasize faster perceived onset; subcutaneous reports often emphasize smoother or steadier effects. | Focus and brain-fog claims are real search questions, but the clinical claim remains weak. Published route evidence leans intranasal, and subcutaneous cognition claims are still anecdotal or commercial. |
| Subcutaneous Semax is more reliable than intranasal Semax. | No direct human subcutaneous pharmacokinetic, efficacy, or head-to-head comparison was found in the searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov records. | Systemic injection can make delivered amount more measurable than a nasal spray, but Semax still faces peptide degradation and uncertain blood-to-brain delivery. A cleaner systemic dose still leaves CNS exposure to be measured. | Clinic and forum reports often describe subcutaneous Semax as more consistent, steadier, and less affected by congestion, runoff, or spray technique. These reports also bring injection burden, site reactions, sterility, and product-quality concerns. | This route-superiority claim appears in clinic and forum reports, but direct human support for route superiority in brain-directed outcomes is still missing. |
| Semax helps anxiety, mood, or stress resilience. | The Semax literature does not include a modern anxiety or mood trial. Russian labeling and online discussion may mention stress-related or neurotic disorders, but the current citations support stroke, optic nerve, and mechanism claims more clearly. | Monoaminergic, enkephalin-related, neurotrophin, and inflammatory hypotheses provide biologic reasons people connect Semax with mood and stress resilience. | Clinics and peptide communities commonly talk about calm focus, stress tolerance, fatigue-related attention, and mood. Those claims are lower confidence than the stroke and optic nerve literature. | Keep mood and anxiety language secondary. It is a common public claim, but the human evidence is stronger for stroke and optic nerve contexts than for mood. |
| Semax is helpful for optic nerve disease. | A PubMed-indexed Russian-language clinical trial reported Semax as an add-on in optic nerve disease, including intranasal drops and endonasal electrophoresis arms. | CNS and neurotrophin biology gives the claim a plausible mechanism, but the evidence is still a specialized clinical context rather than a broad eye-health claim. | Optic nerve discussion is less dominant in English-speaking nootropic communities than focus or mood, which can make this clinical paper easy to miss. | This is limited human optic nerve disease evidence, not a broad vision, eye-health, or neuroprotection claim. |
| A research vial, clinic product, or nasal spray is equivalent to studied Semax. | Human studies only help with a current product if the product, route, formulation, concentration, storage, and quality controls resemble the studied context closely enough to justify comparison. | Peptides can degrade, aggregate, vary in concentration, and carry route specific risks. HPLC purity language alone does not answer sterility, endotoxin, microbial, concentration, or storage questions. | The public market includes nasal sprays, injectable products, compounded clinic products, research-use vials, and derivative products that borrow the Semax name. | That comparison is too broad. Product identity and quality controls matter as much as the route label. |
Bottom line
Main takeaway
Semax is a Russian stroke medicine that the internet turned into a focus supplement. The first identity has limited human trials behind it; the second runs on forum habit.
Intranasal is the only route with human CNS data behind it. Subcutaneous dosing is more precise on paper, but no human study has measured whether that precision reaches the brain or changes any outcome.
The gaps are specific: human subcutaneous pharmacokinetics, any head-to-head route comparison, modern cognition trials, and product-level quality documentation. The starting points are the 1997 stroke trial, the 2018 rehabilitation paper, the optic nerve trial, and the rat route-comparison study.
Identity
What it is
Semax is a synthetic seven-amino-acid peptide modeled on a fragment of ACTH, sequence Met-Glu-His-Phe-Pro-Gly-Pro. It keeps the fragment's neuroactive properties without the parent hormone's steroidogenic activity.
In Russia it became a registered intranasal medicine, and the human literature matches that life: a 1997 trial in acute hemispheric ischemic stroke, a 2018 rehabilitation study that tracked BDNF, motor performance, and Barthel-index scores, and an optic nerve disease trial with nasal-drop and endonasal-electrophoresis arms. Rat studies add brain exposure after intranasal dosing, neurotrophin signaling, and gene-expression changes after ischemia.
Online, Semax lives a second life as a nootropic for focus, mood, and brain fog. It is increasingly injected subcutaneously on the theory that a syringe doses more precisely than a spray, but no published human study has tested subcutaneous Semax at all, so that theory currently rests on animal route work and user reports.
How people talk about it online
Nootropic forums describe intranasal Semax as fast and acute for focus or mental clarity, with complaints about congestion, runoff, throat drip, and inconsistent spray technique. The same threads often stack it with Selank, stimulants, or sleep aids, which makes individual reports hard to interpret.
Clinics and a growing share of the market sell subcutaneous Semax as the steadier, more measurable option. That framing comes from sellers and user habit; the searches behind this page found no human subcutaneous pharmacokinetic, efficacy, or route-comparison study to confirm it.
Vendor listings lean on research-use labels, purity percentages, and COAs. None of that paperwork answers sterility, endotoxin, concentration accuracy, or whether the vial resembles the product used in the Russian studies.
Use context
Routes, doses, and cycle patterns
Route is the organizing issue for Semax. The published evidence is mostly intranasal, endonasal, or route-adjacent animal work. Market and forum reports also describe lower-dose intranasal nootropic use and smaller subcutaneous clinic or forum use. Those reports explain why people compare routes, but they are not backed by direct human subcutaneous Semax trials.
Human studies and product labels
Acute hemispheric ischemic stroke study
- Purpose
- Acute ischemic stroke and early neurologic recovery
- Context
- PubMed-indexed Russian-language controlled clinical trial
- Route
- Semax study use; the public citation record does not give enough route detail
- Amount
- Public citation record does not report the amount
- Frequency
- Public citation record does not report the frequency
- Duration
- Acute-period study context; public citation record does not report the exact schedule
This is one of the main human Semax papers. It supports limited stroke-context discussion, but it does not give a route or dose pattern for modern nootropic use.
Ischemic stroke rehabilitation study
- Purpose
- Post-stroke rehabilitation, BDNF, motor performance, and Barthel index
- Context
- PubMed-indexed human rehabilitation study
- Route
- Semax study use; the public citation record does not give enough route detail
- Amount
- 6000 mcg/day
- Frequency
- Daily during each course
- Duration
- Two 10-day courses separated by a 20-day interval
The study supports a limited human neurorecovery signal. It does not show Semax improves healthy cognition, mood, fatigue, or subcutaneous administration outcomes.
Optic nerve disease study
- Purpose
- Vascular, toxic-allergic, inflammatory, or partial-atrophy optic nerve disease
- Context
- PubMed-indexed Russian-language clinical trial
- Route
- Intranasal drops and endonasal electrophoresis arms
- Amount
- Public citation record does not report the amount
- Frequency
- Public citation record does not report the frequency
- Duration
- Public citation record does not report the duration
The paper is route-specific and clinical, but it is still a specialized add-on therapy context with no subcutaneous comparator.
Rat intranasal brain and blood exposure study
- Purpose
- CNS exposure plausibility after nasal administration
- Context
- PubMed-indexed animal tracer study
- Route
- Intranasal
- Amount
- Public citation record does not report the amount
- Frequency
- Experimental administration
- Duration
- Acute animal sampling context
This supports why intranasal Semax is biologically plausible for CNS questions. It is animal exposure evidence, not human clinical efficacy.
Rat route-comparison study
- Purpose
- Nootropic-like and analgesic outcomes after different routes
- Context
- PubMed-indexed animal route-comparison study
- Route
- Intranasal and intraperitoneal; not subcutaneous
- Amount
- Public citation record does not report the amount
- Frequency
- Experimental administration
- Duration
- Animal study context
This is relevant to subcutaneous claims only indirectly. It supports the idea that route can change Semax effects, but it cannot show whether subcutaneous Semax improves human brain outcomes.
Real-world discussion
Intranasal nootropic community ranges
- Purpose
- Focus, attention, mental clarity, fatigue, and brain-fog claims
- Context
- Forum, Reddit-style regimen blog, clinic, and vendor discussion
- Route
- Intranasal
- Amount
- Commonly around 200 to 900 mcg/day; broader reports describe about 500 to 3000 mcg/day
- Frequency
- Often split once to several times daily, commonly morning or early afternoon
- Duration
- Often described as 10 to 20 days or 2 to 4 week cycles
These numbers are reported-market ranges, not directions. They describe what circulates online and in commercial nootropic contexts. They are much lower than Russian stroke-style intranasal schedules and are not healthy-user benefit studies.
Subcutaneous clinic and forum ranges
- Purpose
- Steadier subjective effects, dose precision, and bypassing nasal variability
- Context
- Clinic, vendor, and forum discussion
- Route
- Subcutaneous injection
- Amount
- Commonly around 100 to 300 mcg once daily; some reports describe 300 to 400 mcg/day
- Frequency
- Often once daily or about 4 days per week in user reports
- Duration
- Often described in 4 to 8 week cycles
These are market and personal-use reports, not dosing guidance. Searches did not locate human subcutaneous Semax PK, efficacy, or head-to-head route data, so dose precision is separate from CNS superiority.
Russian intranasal stroke-style label ranges
- Purpose
- Acute neurologic use in Russian clinical context
- Context
- Non-U.S. label and stroke-literature discussion
- Route
- Intranasal
- Amount
- Non-U.S. label summaries describe much higher 1% stroke schedules, roughly in the mg/day range
- Frequency
- Multiple daily administrations in the available summaries
- Duration
- Often around 10 days in the available summaries
These schedules show how different Russian neurologic use is from English-speaking nootropic routines. The available label summaries were too incomplete to line up cleanly with the study citations.
Product-quality centered route claims
- Purpose
- Distinguishing studied products from clinic, compounded, and research-market products
- Context
- FDA compounding and bulk-substance safety materials
- Route
- Intranasal, subcutaneous, and other product-specific routes
- Amount
- Product-specific
- Frequency
- Product-specific
- Duration
- Product-specific
A route comparison can be misleading when product identity, sterility, concentration, storage, endotoxin control, and lot documentation differ across products.
What varies
- Goal: stroke recovery, optic nerve disease, cognition, mood, and fatigue claims have different levels of support.
- Route: intranasal and endonasal evidence does not automatically transfer to subcutaneous use.
- Amount: Russian neurologic schedules, nootropic nasal schedules, and injectable clinic schedules come from different evidence contexts.
- Frequency and duration: study settings and internet-reported ranges represent different Semax contexts.
- Product quality: route claims depend on identity, concentration, sterility, endotoxin control, storage, and whether the product resembles the studied material.
Human data
Human evidence
Human Semax evidence exists, but it is old, Russian-language, and clinical: acute hemispheric ischemic stroke in 1997, stroke rehabilitation with BDNF and Barthel-index outcomes in 2018, and an optic nerve disease trial with intranasal and endonasal arms. All of it is limited-grade, and none of it tests healthy cognition, mood, or any subcutaneous regimen. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov searches found no human subcutaneous Semax study of any kind. The focus, mood, and brain-fog claims that drive most of the interest sit outside what has been measured.
Evidence maturity
Semax has limited human evidence in older Russian stroke and optic nerve settings, while modern nootropic and subcutaneous claims remain untested in controlled human trials.
Rat studies report intranasal brain exposure, neurotrophin signaling, and ischemia-related gene-expression changes.
Older Russian-language trials reported recovery signals in acute ischemic stroke, rehabilitation, and optic nerve disease.
None found for cognition, mood, or subcutaneous use, and no direct human subcutaneous route data exist.
Registered intranasal products exist in Russia, but there is no FDA-approved Semax product and gray-market sprays and vials run ahead of the data.
| Study / evidence area | Population | Design | Product context | Main outcome | Limitations | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acute hemispheric ischemic stroke study | Patients in the acute period of hemispheric ischemic stroke | Controlled clinical trial | Semax in Russian clinical literature | Reported faster restoration of injured neurologic functions when Semax was added to intensive therapy. | Older Russian-language study, limited public details, no direct human subcutaneous comparator, and no basis for general cognitive or mood claims. | limited-human |
| Ischemic stroke rehabilitation study | Patients at different stages of ischemic stroke | Human rehabilitation study | Semax in Russian clinical literature | Reported BDNF, motor-performance, and Barthel-index signals, with rehabilitation timing discussed as part of the clinical context. | Stroke-specific and route-specific details need full-text review before any regimen-level claim, and they say little about subcutaneous use. | limited-human |
| Optic nerve disease trial | Patients with vascular, toxic-allergic, inflammatory, or partial-atrophy optic nerve disease | Clinical trial with route groups and a control group | Intranasal drops and endonasal electrophoresis add-on use | Reported visual-function improvements when Semax was added to the therapeutic complex. | Specialized indication, older Russian-language paper, add-on treatment context, and no subcutaneous comparison. | limited-human |
| Human subcutaneous route data gap | No human subcutaneous trial population found | PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov search gap | Subcutaneous Semax route claims | The exact PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov searches did not identify direct human subcutaneous Semax pharmacokinetic, efficacy, or head-to-head route evidence. | This leaves room for unpublished data, but it prevents claiming that subcutaneous Semax is already shown to be safer or better for CNS outcomes. | unclear |
| Intranasal CNS exposure and route mechanism | Rat models | Animal tracer, route-comparison, neurotrophin, and ischemia gene-expression studies | Preclinical Semax literature | Reported brain and blood exposure after intranasal administration, route-dependent nootropic-like and analgesic effects, neurotrophin signaling, and ischemia-related gene-expression changes. | Animal and mechanism evidence do not settle human efficacy, chronic safety, or a subcutaneous route preference. | preclinical |
Cautions
Safety and unknowns
- In available U.S.-focused materials, Semax does not have a U.S. FDA-approved finished-drug label, so U.S. product discussions lack a single approved-label route, concentration, excipient, manufacturing, storage, and adverse-event record.
- Intranasal use raises nasal irritation, congestion, runoff, technique, preservative, microbial, and multi-use spray contamination questions, especially outside a regulated product chain.
- Subcutaneous use adds injection-site reactions, sterile technique, sharps, reconstitution, concentration math, endotoxin, microbial contamination, and repeated-site tissue irritation concerns.
- The current literature leaves chronic safety, pregnancy or lactation safety, psychiatric safety in anxiety-accompanied conditions, seizure risk, drug interactions, and long-term use outcomes for consumer settings unanswered.
- Mood, anxiety, ADHD-like, post-concussion, fatigue, and healthy-user nootropic claims can involve vulnerable populations and co-use with stimulants, sedatives, antidepressants, sleep aids, or other peptides.
Product quality
A vial label is only a starting point
Product origin is central for Semax because published intranasal literature, compounded clinic products, research-market vials, and derivative products do not share one manufacturing or release standard.
A route-ready product needs more than a purity percentage: identity, concentration, sterility, endotoxin and microbial testing, stability, storage, and formulation details all matter.
Clinic and forum claims often emphasize subcutaneous precision, but precision depends on the actual vial concentration and quality system, not only on using a syringe.
Identity
Parent Semax, N-Acetyl Semax Amidate, Ac-Semax, salts, and blended or mislabeled products can be confused in the market.
Route-specific formulation
Nasal sprays, drops, and injectable solutions require different excipients, sterility expectations, preservatives, and handling.
Sterility and endotoxin
Injectable use has little margin for contamination. Nasal products also need microbial controls, especially when multi-use bottles are handled repeatedly.
Lot documentation
A credible quality document needs lot identity, dates, method details, concentration or net peptide content, and tests relevant to the route.
Mechanism
How it is proposed to work
Semax draws interest because it brings together ACTH-fragment biology, intranasal peptide delivery, neurotrophin signaling, ischemia biology, and user-reported cognitive effects. The mechanism is not a single settled receptor story.
Rat and molecular studies connect Semax with BDNF and TrkB-related signaling, NGF-related pathways, monoamine hypotheses, enkephalin-related enzyme effects, and gene-expression changes after ischemic injury.
Intranasal delivery matters because nasal mucosa can provide both local absorption and nose-to-brain plausibility. The rat tracer study supports intranasal brain-exposure plausibility, but it is not human clinical evidence.
Subcutaneous delivery may improve measurable systemic dosing, yet Semax still faces enzymatic degradation and uncertain BBB passage from blood. Systemic precision is therefore not the same thing as CNS benefit.
The route-comparison rat paper is a warning against simple assumptions: intranasal and intraperitoneal delivery produced different nootropic-like and analgesic patterns.
Its Russian registration rests on stroke and ischemia applications, where the proposed value is neurotrophic support rather than acute cognitive enhancement: a different claim from the nootropic framing it receives online.
FAQ
Common questions
Is subcutaneous Semax better than intranasal Semax?
The human CNS evidence found here is mostly intranasal or endonasal. Current PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov checks did not return direct human subcutaneous route data. Clinics and forums often describe subcutaneous use as steadier or easier to measure, but rat intraperitoneal route data are only adjacent and do not show subcutaneous human benefit.
Is there Semax use guidance?
The record includes reported study and market schedules for context, but they do not add up to one practical protocol. Route, amount, timing, combinations, and administration methods remain product- and setting-specific.
Details
Technical details
Sources
References
- 1.
FDA. July 23-24, 2026: Meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee 2026.
Accessed 2026-07-24.
FDA meeting page for the July 23-24, 2026 PCAC review of BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTs-C, emideltide/DSIP, Semax, and Epitalon bulk substances, including the uses evaluated for each, briefing documents, and docket FDA-2025-N-6895.
- 2.
FDA. Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding that May Present Significant Safety Risks 2026.
Accessed 2026-06-08.
FDA summarizes potential significant safety risks and missing safety information for several nominated peptide bulk substances.
- 3.
PubMed. Effectiveness of Semax in acute period of hemispheric ischemic stroke 1997.
PMID:11517472 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Russian-language controlled clinical trial in acute hemispheric ischemic stroke; route and regimen context require direct-source verification before any protocol display.
- 4.
PubMed. The efficacy of Semax in the treatment of patients at different stages of ischemic stroke 2018.
doi:10.17116/jnevro20181183261-68 PMID:29798983 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Human stroke rehabilitation study reporting BDNF, motor-performance, and Barthel-index outcomes; keep regimen details study-reported only.
- 5.
PubMed. Evaluation of therapeutic effect of new Russian drug Semax in optic nerve disease 2000.
PMID:10741256 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Russian-language clinical trial comparing intranasal drops, endonasal electrophoresis, and control groups in optic nerve disease.
- 6.
PubMed. Kinetics of Semax penetration into the brain and blood of rats after intranasal administration 2006.
doi:10.1134/s1068162006010055 PMID:16523722 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Rat tracer study supporting intranasal brain/blood exposure plausibility; not direct human efficacy evidence.
- 7.
PubMed. Nootropic and analgesic effects of Semax following different routes of administration 2010.
PMID:21268834 Accessed 2026-06-09.
Rat route-comparison study involving intranasal and intraperitoneal administration; adjacent to, but not evidence for, human subcutaneous use.
- 8.
PubMed. PubMed search for Semax subcutaneous human route evidence 2026.
Accessed 2026-06-09.
Official PubMed query returned no records for this exact human subcutaneous route-evidence search during the 2026-06-09 check.
- 9.
ClinicalTrials.gov. ClinicalTrials.gov search for Semax 2026.
Accessed 2026-06-09.
No matching Semax clinical trial records were returned by this exact Semax registry search.
- 10.
PubMed. Neurotrophin gene expression in rat brain under the action of Semax, an analogue of ACTH 4-10 2007.
doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.02.042 PMID:17353092 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Preclinical intranasal rat study reporting neurotrophin gene-expression effects; mechanism support only.
- 11.
PubMed. Semax, an analog of ACTH(4-7), regulates expression of immune response genes during ischemic brain injury in rats 2017.
doi:10.1007/s00438-017-1297-1 PMID:28255762 Accessed 2026-06-08.
Rat focal-ischemia transcriptome study; useful for mechanism context but not a human route-comparison source.
- 12.
Semax route anecdotes. Public forum and route-report material used to summarize intranasal and subcutaneous user claims.
Anecdotal route reports; does not answer efficacy, pharmacokinetics, or safety.
- 13.
Semax clinic and market pages. Clinic, vendor, and protocol-style material describing marketed Semax route claims.
Market-practice context for reported ranges and claims; not clinical-trial evidence.
- 14.
Russian intranasal label summary. Non-U.S. intranasal Semax label and stroke-use summary material.
Route and label-context comparison; not U.S. approval or self-directed use guidance.