Research Library
The evidence, including the parts that are missing.
Stem cells, exosomes and peptides are the three things being sold hardest to women in this decade of life. Here is what has actually been published about each of them, what it does and does not show, and which questions are still open — with every paper cited so you can go and read it yourself.
Why a company that does not sell these things writes about them.
Aethera Women's Lab does not offer stem cell therapy or exosome products, and does not sell them through this site. That is exactly why we can describe them accurately: there is no order button at the end of this page, so nothing here has to flatter the science. If you are considering one of these treatments somewhere else, this is the briefing we would want a member to walk in with.
How to read this page
Every claim below is attached to a specific paper, with its design and its size, because those two facts decide how much a result is worth. A single-arm study of forty people is not the same kind of evidence as a placebo-controlled trial of twelve hundred, even when both report an improvement.
Where the evidence sits
Four subjects, four very different amounts of proof.
Replicated controlled trials in humans, with outcomes that matter to a patient.
Real human trials exist, but they are few, small, or measure surrogates rather than outcomes.
Promising in cells and animals. Very little of it has been tested properly in people yet.
Widely marketed. The clinical evidence has not caught up, and the manufacturing is not consistently regulated.
Emerging
Stem cells and PRP for ovarian reserve
Can anything restore an ovary that is running out of time?
The largest study to date followed 353 women who had intraovarian platelet-rich plasma — 207 poor responders and 146 with primary ovarian insufficiency. In the poor responders, antral follicle counts rose at every follow-up, and the oocytes that were retrieved matured and fertilised at higher rates than before treatment. That is a real, measured signal.
But the same study found no increase in the number of oocytes or blastocysts obtained, and in the women with primary ovarian insufficiency it changed nothing about IVF or pregnancy outcomes at all. The authors — who work at fertility clinics that offer this — wrote that randomised trials are still needed to validate it. It was a retrospective study with no control group.
Mesenchymal stem cells for ovarian insufficiency are a stage earlier than that. The work restoring ovarian reserve is in mice. The human trials exist, but they are Phase 1 and Phase 2, they enrol fifty to sixty women, and several of them do not report until 2028.
Still open
Nobody has yet shown, in a randomised trial, that either raises live birth rates. Antral follicle count is a surrogate — it is what a clinic can measure in a month, not what you came for.
Ahead of its evidence
Exosomes for skin and hair
The fastest-growing offer in aesthetics. Does it work?
A 2023 systematic review of exosomes for hair restoration found sixteen studies. Fifteen of them were preclinical — cells and animals. One was clinical. That single ratio is the most honest summary of the field that exists.
By 2025 a systematic review could find eleven clinical studies, of which two were randomised controlled trials. All of them reported an improvement in at least one hair measurement, with density gains between about ten and thirty-five hairs per square centimetre. The reviewers were explicit that small samples, inconsistent designs and short follow-up limit what can be concluded.
The safety picture is the part that gets left out. A 2024 review in Dermatologic Surgery counted about 125 patients treated for hair loss with exosomes across nine studies, where side effects were rare — but noted that in dermatology more broadly, at least ten serious adverse events have been reported. Its conclusion was a call for consistent manufacturing standards and regulatory oversight. These products are not standardised between clinics.
For skin, the most cited study is a six-week, single-arm, non-randomised trial of a topical platelet-exosome serum. It reported statistically significant improvements in redness, wrinkles and pigmentation. It also had no control group, and several authors were affiliated with the company that makes the product. Neither fact makes the result false. Both change how much weight it carries.
Still open
There is no randomised, placebo-controlled trial of exosomes for facial skin ageing with long follow-up. Two are now running for hair. Until they report, "exosome facial" is a purchase made on preclinical data.
Established
Peptides for skin
The least glamorous of the three. Also the best evidenced.
A 2024 systematic review of cosmeceuticals for photoaged skin compared botanicals, peptides and hydroquinone, and concluded that the evidence base behind peptides was the strongest of the group, with most studies reaching the highest tier of the evidence hierarchy used — individual randomised controlled trials.
That is a genuinely useful finding, and it is worth being precise about what it means. These are cosmetic effects on the appearance of skin, measured over weeks to months. It is not a claim about biological age, and no topical peptide has been shown to do anything for bone, muscle or hormones.
Injectable and systemic peptides are a separate subject with a separate risk profile, and most of what is marketed online in that category has no lawful route to a patient at all. Where a physician on a licensed network prescribes one from your panel and monitors it, that is medicine. Where a website ships you a vial, it is not.
Still open
Long-term data is scarce even here, and "peptide" on a label tells you nothing about which peptide, at what concentration, or whether it survives the formulation.
Established
Hair loss: what actually has high-certainty evidence
If you only read one section before spending money, read this one.
The Cochrane review pooled 63 randomised trials covering 47 different treatments in 4,817 people. Across almost all of them the certainty of the evidence was rated low or very low — including for corticosteroids, ciclosporin and contact immunotherapy, which have been standard practice for decades.
One treatment came out with high-certainty evidence for both short-term and long-term regrowth: an oral JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, tested in two trials totalling 1,200 participants. That is what a well-powered, placebo-controlled result looks like, and it is a useful yardstick to hold everything else against.
Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition and is not the same as the diffuse thinning many women notice in perimenopause. But the lesson transfers exactly: when a field is properly systematically reviewed, most of what is confidently sold turns out to rest on low-certainty evidence.
Still open
Female pattern hair loss at midlife has far less high-certainty evidence than it deserves, and almost none of the regenerative options have been tested against a placebo in it.
What is being tested right now
Registered trials that are recruiting or running. Sizes are small and most do not report until 2026–2028 — which is the single most useful fact on this page.
| Registry ID | What is being tested | participants | Phase | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT05790655 | Ovarian PRP for diminished ovarian reserve, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 230 | — | Recruiting |
| NCT04031456 | Intra-ovarian PRP in primary ovarian insufficiency, vs platelet-free plasma | 100 | Phase 2/3 | Recruiting |
| NCT04278313 | Intra-ovarian PRP for ovarian ageing, vs platelet-poor plasma | 90 | — | Running |
| NCT07693244 | Umbilical-cord MSC exosomes for androgenetic alopecia, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled | 120 | Phase 2 | Recruiting |
| NCT07115082 | Amniotic mesenchymal stem cells for premature ovarian insufficiency | 50 | Phase 1/2 | Recruiting |
| NCT07510139 | Umbilical-cord MSC exosomes for premature ovarian insufficiency | 60 | Phase 1/2 | Running |
One systematic review said it better than we can.
Reviewing nineteen studies across stem cells, exosomes, polydeoxyribonucleotide, photobiomodulation and bioactive peptides, the authors concluded that regenerative aesthetics “lacks the necessary scientific rigour and regulatory compliance to be recognized as a legitimate medical specialty”, and called for validation and oversight before these techniques are recommended clinically.
Rahman E, Carruthers JDA, Webb WR, et al. · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2024 · DOI
That is not a reason to dismiss any of it. It is a reason to know which column a treatment sits in before you pay for it — and to be suspicious of anyone selling you certainty that the literature does not have yet.
Every paper cited on this page
Retrieved from PubMed. Each link goes to the publisher’s record via DOI, not to a search page.
- Impact of bilateral intraovarian platelet-rich plasma in women with poor ovarian response or primary ovarian insufficiencyMolinaro P, Ballester A, García-Velasco JA, et al. · Fertility and Sterility, 2025 · Retrospective cohort, 353 womendoi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.143
- Premature ovarian insufficiency: pathogenesis and therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cellTakahashi A, Yousif A, Hong L, Chefetz I · Journal of Molecular Medicine, 2021 · Narrative reviewdoi.org/10.1007/s00109-021-02055-5
- Ovarian aging: mechanisms and intervention strategiesZhu Z, Xu W, Liu L · Medical Review, 2022 · Reviewdoi.org/10.1515/mr-2022-0031
- Exosomes for Treating Hair Loss: A Review of Clinical StudiesQueen D, Avram MR · Dermatologic Surgery, 2024 · Review of 48 studiesdoi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000004480
- Exosomes and Hair Regeneration: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence Across Alopecia Types and Exosome SourcesAl Ameer MA, Alnajim AT, Al Ameer A, et al. · Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 2025 · Systematic review, 11 studies (2 RCTs)doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S543451
- Systematic review of exosome treatment in hair restoration: preliminary evidence, safety, and future directionsGupta AK, Wang T, Rapaport JA · Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2023 · Systematic review, 16 studies (15 preclinical)doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15869
- Efficacy and Tolerability of Topical Platelet Exosomes for Skin Rejuvenation: Six-Week ResultsProffer SL, Paradise CR, Wyles SP, et al. · Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2022 · Single-arm, non-randomised, 6 weeksdoi.org/10.1093/asj/sjac149
- Regenerative Aesthetics: A Genuine Frontier or Just a Facet of Regenerative Medicine: A Systematic ReviewRahman E, Carruthers JDA, Webb WR, et al. · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2024 · Systematic review, 19 studies (14 RCTs)doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-04287-5
- Cosmeceuticals in photoaging: A reviewChan LKW, Lee KWA, Yi KH, et al. · Skin Research and Technology, 2024 · Systematic review of cosmeceuticalsdoi.org/10.1111/srt.13730
- Topical Over-the-Counter Antiaging Agents: An Update and Systematic ReviewImhof L, Leuthard D · Dermatology, 2020 · Systematic reviewdoi.org/10.1159/000509296
- Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta-analysisMateos-Haro M, Novoa-Candia M, Zamora J, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2023 · Network meta-analysis, 63 RCTs, 4,817 participantsdoi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013719.pub2
Aethera Women's Lab is not a medical provider and does not practice medicine. Medical services are provided exclusively by independently licensed physicians of our partner physician network and their affiliated professional entities.
Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and have not been evaluated by FDA for safety or effectiveness.
See what the panel measures.
Start with a panel that tells you where you actually are.
Aethera Women's Lab is for adults 21 and over.