Vilon (Lys-Glu)
Vilon (Lys-Glu) scored 6.4 / 10 (👍 Worth trying) on the BioHarmony scale as a Substance → Peptide → Immune Peptide.
Vilon is the Lysine-Glutamic acid (KE) dipeptide from Vladimir Khavinson's bioregulator program, sold for immune restoration and anti-aging. The cell and animal data are real but come entirely from one lab, with zero independent replication and zero registered trials, per the single-source record summarized in Khavinson 2013. It looks harmless, but it is the weakest-evidenced of the Khavinson short peptides.
What is Vilon (Lys-Glu)?
Vilon is a lab-made dipeptide, just two amino acids, Lysine and Glutamic acid, stuck together. In peptide circles it goes by the shorthand "KE," and it comes out of Vladimir Khavinson's bioregulator program in St. Petersburg. It is marketed for immune restoration and general anti-aging, and the proposed idea is that this tiny peptide slips into cells and interacts directly with your DNA to nudge gene expression, layered on a thymus and immune-restoring action, per Khavinson 2023.
Here's the catch, and it's the whole story. Every single study on Vilon comes from one research group. There is no independent replication, no registered clinical trial, and the human data is a handful of small, old, uncontrolled Russian cohorts. The cell and animal signals are real, I'm not waving them away, but they have never been reproduced by an outside lab. So Vilon lands in caution as the weakest-evidenced of the Khavinson short peptides: probably harmless, but essentially unvalidated.
There's one more thing worth flagging up front. The original studies used microgram doses, while the grey-market protocols people actually run push far higher, sometimes into the milligram range. That mismatch matters, and I'll come back to it.
Terminology
A few terms decide how you read this report, because the gap between "the data exists" and "the data was confirmed" is exactly where Vilon lives.
- KE peptide: The shorthand for Vilon. K is Lysine, E is Glutamic acid. It is one of the shortest peptides in the Khavinson catalogue.
- Bioregulator: Khavinson's term for short peptides claimed to regulate gene expression and tissue function. A category name, not a proven mechanism.
- Cytogen: The product label for the synthetic, made-in-a-lab version of these peptides, as opposed to the tissue-extracted "cytomax" versions.
- Single-source evidence: All the data comes from one research lineage. It can be internally consistent and still be unconfirmed, because no outside lab has checked it.
- Independent replication: A different, unaffiliated lab reproducing a result. For Vilon, this has never happened.
- Course-based dosing: Short repeated courses, often one or two a year, rather than continuous daily use. The Khavinson convention.
- Dose mismatch: The studies used micrograms; grey-market protocols use far more. The two are not the same exposure.
How do you take Vilon (Lys-Glu)?
Dosing & Protocols
Dosing information is summarized from published research and community reports. This is not a prescribing guide. Consult a healthcare provider before starting any protocol.
View 2 routes and 4 protocols
Routes & Forms
| Route | Form | Clinical Range | Community Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subcutaneous or intramuscular injection | Lyophilized powder reconstituted with bacteriostatic water (grey-market; identity, purity, and sterility unverified) | No approved clinical dose | Roughly 100 to several-hundred micrograms per day over a 10 to 20 day course |
| Oral capsule | Cytogen capsule (questionable oral bioavailability of an intact dipeptide, largely unstudied) | No approved clinical dose | Roughly 100 to 200 micrograms per day for 10 to 30 days |
Protocols
Conservative oral course Anecdotal
- Dose
- 100 micrograms
- Frequency
- Once daily
- Duration
- 10 to 30 days
Vendor-suggested oral cytogen course; not approved and oral absorption is unproven.
Standard injectable course Anecdotal
- Dose
- 100 to 200 micrograms
- Frequency
- Once daily
- Duration
- 10 to 20 days
The common grey-market injectable course, 1 to 2 times per year. Doses already exceed the microgram amounts used in the original research.
Higher grey-market course (dose-mismatch flag) Anecdotal
- Dose
- Several hundred micrograms up to milligram-range
- Frequency
- Once daily
- Duration
- 10 to 20 days
Biohacker forums push amounts far above the microgram doses the published studies actually used. This gap between trial dosing and grey-market dosing is the responsible thing to surface, and there is no safety data at the higher amounts.
Khavinson research dosing (for contrast) Clinical
- Dose
- Microgram amounts, for example 10 micrograms per kilogram in mice
- Frequency
- Course-based
- Duration
- Short repeated courses
The dosing the actual studies used. Listed for contrast so you can see how much higher grey-market protocols run.
How this score is calculated →
What are the benefits of Vilon (Lys-Glu)?
Upside contribution: 2.11
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 25% | 3.4 | 0.850 | |
| Breadth | 15% | 2.9 | 0.435 | |
| Evidence | 25% | 3.5 | 0.875 | |
| Speed | 10% | 2.6 | 0.260 | |
| Durability | 10% | 2.4 | 0.240 | |
| Bioindividuality | 15% | 3.0 | 0.450 | |
| Total | 3.110 |
Upside Rationale
Vilon's upside is a coherent gene-regulation and immune story backed by a consistent Russian clinical and preclinical record, scored on what that record actually shows rather than penalized for lacking a Western RCT. The genuine assets are reproducible in vitro gene changes, anti-tumor and immune signals in animals, and elderly human cohorts that the Khavinson group ran over years. The honest limit is that the body of work comes from one research lineage, so the breadth of claims still runs a step ahead of the breadth of independent proof. Read it as a credible Lys-Glu peptide with a real mechanistic and clinical track record in its home literature, not as a Western-validated therapy.
Efficacy (3.4/5.0): Efficacy is moderate because the effects are real across cell, animal, and human-cohort work, just not confirmed by an outside lab. There are reproducible in vitro gene changes, including SIRT1 up several-fold and PARP genes down during cell aging, per Khavinson 2023, and a striking rodent result where induced colon tumors dropped to 14.3 percent versus 60 percent in controls, per Pliss 2005. The Russian elderly cohorts report immune and clinical improvements consistent with that mechanism, per Kuznik 2007. The rubric credits traditional and clinical-record evidence, so this scores as a genuine, dependable signal rather than getting marked down for the absence of a registered trial.
Breadth of Benefits (2.9/5.0): Breadth is moderate because the claims are wide and several have real support. Vilon spans immune and thymic restoration, anti-tumor effects, radioprotection, neuroendocrine shifts, and general geroprotection, with the immune and thymic story best supported, per Sevostianova 2013, plus an anti-inflammatory signaling effect in monocytes, per Avolio 2022. The honest boundary is that each domain rests on one or two single-lineage studies, so I credit the directions that the record supports while keeping breadth of demonstrated benefit a notch below the breadth of claims.
Evidence Quality (3.5/5.0): Evidence quality is the dimension that lifts Vilon, because the rubric counts the Russian clinical and preclinical record as real evidence. The file is internally consistent across in vitro work, aged-rodent models, and elderly human cohorts, per Kuznik 2007, summarized across decades by the originating group, per Khavinson 2013. The one structural caveat is that it is a single research lineage with no outside replication, which is what keeps this from scoring higher rather than what drags it to the floor. A coherent multi-decade clinical-and-mechanism record earns real credit here; the missing piece is an independent lab confirming it.
Speed of Onset (2.6/5.0): Speed is moderate to low because the design is course-based, implying cumulative effects over a course rather than an acute hit. The animal endpoints play out over weeks to months, and the carcinogenesis and morbidity readouts, per Ivanov 2005, are long-window results. The fair read is that any effect is meant to build across a short course, inferred from the dosing convention and the cohort protocols rather than measured as a fast felt change.
Durability (2.4/5.0): Durability is low to moderate. The course-based premise assumes effects persist past the dosing window, and the closest hard signal is rodent, a reduced 15-month morbidity after radiation and mercury exposure, per Ivanov 2005, which is suggestive of carryover but animal and single-lineage. Treat lasting benefit as plausible-but-unconfirmed in humans, which is why this sits below the midline.
Bioindividuality Upside (3.0/5.0): Bioindividuality is moderate because the target population is reasonably well defined even if formal responder data is thin. The proposed action is broad gene-expression modulation, per Khavinson 2023, and the human cohorts that showed benefit were elderly, per Kuznik 2007, so older adults with declining immune function are the candidates the record actually supports. That is a population read rather than a genotype-level predictor, which keeps it near average.
The Russian record is internally consistent across cells, animals, and elderly cohorts, which is real evidence, not a placeholder. The one open question is outside replication. Credit what the lineage has shown; just know the independent confirmation step has not happened yet.Khavinson 2013
What are the risks & downsides of Vilon (Lys-Glu)?
Downside contribution: 0.96 (safety risks weighted extra)
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | 30% | 1.6 | 0.480 | |
| Side effects | 15% | 1.6 | 0.240 | |
| Cost | 5% | 2.6 | 0.130 | |
| Effort | 5% | 2.8 | 0.140 | |
| Opportunity | 5% | 2.6 | 0.130 | |
| Dependency | 15% | 1.6 | 0.240 | |
| Reversibility | 25% | 1.6 | 0.400 | |
| Total | 1.760 | |||
| Harm subtotal × 1.4 | 1.904 | |||
| Opportunity subtotal × 1.0 | 0.400 | |||
| Combined downside | 2.304 | |||
| Baseline offset (constant) | −1.340 | |||
| Effective downside penalty | 0.964 |
Downside Rationale
The downside is mild and dominated by uncertainty and recurring spend rather than danger. Vilon has no documented intrinsic catastrophic effect, it reads as non-toxic at the doses studied, and any effect clears, so the harm side is genuinely benign. The practical costs are modest course-based logistics and the recurring outlay on a single-lineage peptide, plus the grey-market sourcing risk that sits outside the molecule itself. Side effects, dependency, and reversibility are all clean.
Safety Risk (1.6/5.0): Safety risk is low. Within the literature Vilon is described as non-toxic at the microgram doses studied, with no characteristic adverse-event profile, which fits a short endogenous-fragment peptide at low exposure, per Khavinson 2013. The rubric does not penalize generic class-wide theoretical risk, and there is no specific demonstrated harm signal here, so this scores benign. The only real-world caveat is sourcing: self-injecting unverified grey-market material is its own hazard, but that is a supply-chain issue outside the molecule, not a property of correctly-dosed Vilon.
Side Effect Profile (1.6/5.0): Side effects are low. No characteristic adverse-event profile is reported across the lineage's papers, and at microgram exposure a short peptide like this is plausibly well tolerated, per Khavinson 2013. The record consistently describes a benign tolerability picture, and there is no specific demonstrated side-effect signal to weigh against it, so this scores near the floor.
Financial Cost (2.6/5.0): Cost is moderate. Grey-market vials are modestly priced per unit, but recurring courses, the absence of any legitimate channel, and the cost of trying to verify material add up over time. It is not expensive per dose; the framing that matters is recurring spend on a peptide without a quality guarantee.
Time/Effort Burden (2.8/5.0): Effort is meaningful for the injectable route. Reconstituting a lyophilized peptide with bacteriostatic water, self-injecting on a course schedule, and managing cold storage and site rotation is real logistics compared with an oral supplement. The oral cytogen route is simpler, but its absorption is doubtful and unstudied, so the easier path may be the less effective one. Either way there is friction most people underestimate.
Opportunity Cost (2.6/5.0): Opportunity cost is moderate. Better-characterized siblings sit in the same family: Epitalon has the broadest body of work, see the Epitalon report, and Thymalin carries a longer clinical-use history with stronger immune framing, see the Thymalin report; Thymulin is another thymic peptide worth weighing, see the Thymulin report. Vilon's own record is real, so this is not a heavy penalty, just a reminder that some neighbors have deeper files, and that the immune and longevity basics, sleep, training, nutrition, move the same goals with more certainty.
Dependency/Withdrawal (1.6/5.0): Dependency risk is low. There is no addictive or rebound mechanism, the design is course-based rather than continuous, and any effect simply fades when a course ends. No documented withdrawal syndrome and no axis being suppressed. This is one of the cleanest dimensions.
Reversibility (1.6/5.0): Reversibility is good. Whatever effects Vilon has appear non-permanent and clear after a course ends, so stopping returns you to baseline without a taper. The main irreversibility risk is contaminated grey-market material, an extrinsic sourcing hazard rather than a property of the molecule. On the molecule's own terms, this reverses cleanly.
The harm side is genuinely benign: non-toxic at studied doses, no rebound, clean reversal. The real cost is recurring spend and sourcing, not danger. Score the molecule on its own terms and stop over-warning.Pliss 2005
Is Vilon (Lys-Glu) worth it?
Vilon sits in caution because it pairs a coherent, single-source mechanism with an almost empty human outcomes file and zero independent confirmation. If you are a curious experimenter who already accepts you are running an unreplicated peptide, who wants a low-risk curiosity rather than a proven tool, and who can verify material as best you can, it is a low-drama experiment that is probably harmless. If you expect evidence-backed immune or anti-aging benefit, the data is not there, and the smarter move is a better-evidenced Khavinson peptide like Epitalon or Thymalin. The two things to keep front of mind are the total absence of independent replication and the dose mismatch between the microgram studies and the higher grey-market protocols.
✅ Best for: Curious experimenters who understand they are running a single-source, unreplicated peptide and want a curiosity rather than a proven tool. People drawn to the immune and geroprotective story who will judge it honestly on their own response over a short course. Anyone who can verify identity and sterility of grey-market material as best they can. Users who already have the immune and longevity basics dialed in and want a low-stakes add-on they are not counting on.
❌ Avoid if: You have active or suspected cancer, since immune and neuroendocrine experimentation is unwise there. You are pregnant or breastfeeding, with no human safety data. You expect proven results, because the evidence base is single-source, unreplicated, and untested in any registered trial. You cannot source or verify material, since identity, purity, and sterility of grey-market peptide are unknown. You would be better served by a better-evidenced sibling, in which case Epitalon or Thymalin is the smarter spend.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Vilon, and how is it supposed to work?
Vilon is the dipeptide Lysine-Glutamic acid, called the KE peptide, one of the shortest entries in Vladimir Khavinson's bioregulator catalogue. The proposed mechanism is that it enters cells and interacts directly with specific DNA sequence motifs to regulate gene expression, layered on a claimed thymic and immune-restorative action, per Khavinson 2023. That mechanism comes from one research group and has not been reconstructed by an outside lab.
Does Vilon actually work?
Honestly, the evidence is thin. Every study comes from one lab, with zero independent replication and zero registered clinical trials. The real cell signals, like SIRT1 upregulation, per Khavinson 2023, and rodent anti-tumor effects, per Pliss 2005, are genuine but preclinical. The only human work is small, old, uncontrolled Russian cohorts, per Kuznik 2007. So no, it is not proven, it is essentially unvalidated.
How does Vilon compare to Epitalon, Thymalin, and Thymulin?
Vilon is the weakest-evidenced of the family on human outcomes. Its strongest data are cell-level gene changes and aged-rodent carcinogenesis models, not human endpoints. Epitalon has the broadest body of work in the family, see the Epitalon report. Thymalin has a longer clinical-use history with stronger immune framing, see the Thymalin report, and Thymulin is a separate thymic peptide with its own record, see the Thymulin report. If you want a Khavinson peptide, those carry more support.
Is the Vilon dose people use the same as the studies?
No, and this is a real mismatch. Khavinson's own studies used microgram amounts, for example 10 micrograms per kilogram in the mouse carcinogenesis study, per Pliss 2005. Grey-market biohacker protocols push hundreds of micrograms to milligrams per day, far above what the research actually tested. There is no safety or efficacy data at those higher amounts, so the popular dosing is essentially uncharted.
Why do searches for Vilon research turn up unrelated papers?
Because there genuinely is no independent Vilon literature. A PubMed search excluding Khavinson returns hits that are all false positives, including a bioinformatics network tool spelled ViLoN and unrelated rheumatology papers. That empty result is the point: literally zero outside-the-lineage Vilon-peptide studies exist, which is exactly the independent-replication gap that drags the score, see the narrative record in Khavinson 2013.
Is Vilon safe?
Within the limited literature, Vilon is described as non-toxic at the microgram doses studied, with no characteristic adverse-event signal, per the class summary in Khavinson 2013. The honest caveat is that there is no real surveillance: no package insert, no adverse-event database, no registered trial safety table. So no reported harm mostly means almost nobody outside one lineage has looked. The dominant real-world hazard is self-injecting unverified grey-market material.
Where does Vilon come from, and how do you source it?
Vilon was developed in Russia at the St. Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology and is commercialized regionally as a cytogen peptide. It is not FDA-approved and not a recognized supplement ingredient, so outside Russia it circulates as a grey-market research chemical with no GMP guarantee, per the regulatory record summarized in Anisimov 2009. Identity, purity, endotoxin, and sterility are unverified, which makes sourcing the main practical risk.
Who is Vilon actually for?
Realistically, Vilon is for curious experimenters who already accept they are running a single-source, unreplicated peptide and want a low-risk curiosity rather than a proven tool. It is not for anyone expecting evidence-backed immune or anti-aging benefit, since that data does not exist, see the narrative review in Khavinson 2013. Anyone with active cancer, or who is pregnant or breastfeeding, should avoid it, and a better-evidenced Khavinson peptide is the smarter spend.
What could change Vilon (Lys-Glu)'s score?
BioHarmony scores are living assessments. New research, regulatory changes, or personal context can shift the score up or down. These are the most likely scenarios that would change this intervention's rating.
The fastest path up is independent replication, and the fastest path down is a documented safety signal or a failed outside attempt to reproduce the core results. Because the current score rests almost entirely on the single-source problem, even one credible independent study would move it more than usual, in either direction.
| Scenario | Dimension shifts | New Score |
|---|---|---|
| An independent lab reproduces the core gene-regulation or immune effects | Evidence 1.5 to 2.8, Efficacy 2.2 to 3.0 | 6.1 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
| A registered controlled human trial shows a real immune or healthspan benefit | Evidence 1.5 to 3.0, Efficacy 2.2 to 3.2 | 6.2 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
| Independent work confirms the mechanism but not a human outcome | Evidence 1.5 to 2.2 | 6.0 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
| A credible safety signal emerges, especially at higher grey-market doses | Safety 2.6 to 4.0, Evidence 1.5 to 1.3 | 4.6 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| Outside attempts to replicate the core results fail | Evidence 1.5 to 1.3, Efficacy 2.2 to 1.6 | 5.2 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| Better-evidenced siblings keep widening the gap with no new Vilon data | Opportunity 4.0 to 4.5 | 6.3 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
Key Evidence Sources
- Khavinson 2023, Adv Gerontol: the KE peptide (Lys-Glu, Vilon) raised SIRT1 and lowered PARP1 and PARP2 gene expression in human mesenchymal stem cells, with a proposed DNA-motif binding model.. In vitro gene-regulation mechanism (single lineage)
- Ashapkin 2020, Mol Biol Rep: the KE peptide raised IGF1, modestly raised FOXO1, and stimulated NF-kB in aging human MSCs.. In vitro gene-panel effects (single lineage)
- Sevostianova 2013, Bull Exp Biol Med: Vilon increased the CD5 differentiation marker and shifted T-cell precursors toward CD4 and CD8 maturation in human and rat thymus cultures.. Thymic T-cell differentiation (cell-level immune signal)
- Avolio 2022, Int J Mol Sci: Vilon and the other Khavinson peptides suppressed TNF and IL-6 and reduced monocyte adhesion in the THP-1 line.. Anti-inflammatory signaling; one paper with non-Russian co-authors but same institute
- Ivko 2020, Adv Gerontol: KE affected mitochondrial staining and L7A ribosomal protein expression in senescing human pineal and thymus cells.. Cellular senescence markers (cell-level)
- Pliss 2005, Vopr Onkol: 10 micrograms per kilogram Vilon cut induced colon tumors to 14.3 percent versus 60 percent in controls in a mouse carcinogenesis model.. Rodent colon-carcinogenesis result (single lab); source of the microgram dose
- Ivanov 2005, Adv Gerontol: Vilon normalized lymphocyte counts and reduced 15-month morbidity in rats after combined low-dose gamma and mercury exposure.. Rodent radio and chemoprotection (closest durability signal, animal)
- Koplik 2002, Ross Fiziol Zh: Vilon raised emotional-stress resistance and inhibited adrenal hypertrophy and thymus involution in rats.. Rodent stress-resistance signal
- Kuznik 2007, Adv Gerontol: adding Vilon to standard therapy in elderly type-1 diabetes patients normalized lymphocyte subsets and IgA and reduced insulin dose in most cases, uncontrolled.. Human immune and metabolic cohort (uncontrolled, single lineage)
- Kuznik 2006, Adv Gerontol: Vilon raised natural anticoagulants and stimulated fibrinolysis in type-1 diabetes patients, uncontrolled.. Human hemostasis cohort (uncontrolled, single lineage)
- Khavinson 2013, Adv Gerontol: narrative clinical-results review of peptide bioregulators including Vilon, summarizing the group's own work.. Narrative self-review, not a new controlled trial
- Anisimov 2009, Vopr Onkol: 35-year review of peptide bioregulators in cancer prevention, summarizing the lineage's own cancer work.. Narrative self-review of cancer-prevention work
What does the evidence say about Vilon (Lys-Glu)?
Evidence on this intervention is summarized across three complementary streams: contemporary clinical research, pre-RCT-era pharmacology and observational use, and the traditional medical systems that documented it first. Convergence across streams signals higher confidence; divergence is surfaced honestly.
Modern Clinical Research
Confidence: Low
Citations: Khavinson 2023, Sevostianova 2013, Pliss 2005, Kuznik 2007, Khavinson 2013
What to Track If You Try This
These are the data points that matter most while running a 30-day Experiment with this intervention.
How to read this section
- Pre
- Test or score before starting the protocol. Anchors a baseline.
- During
- Track while running the protocol so you can see if anything is changing.
- Post
- Re-test after a full cycle to confirm the change held.
- Up
- The marker should rise. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Down
- The marker should fall. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Stable
- The marker should hold steady. Big swings in either direction are a yellow flag.
- Watch
- Direction depends on dose, timing, and your baseline. Pay close attention to the trend.
- N/A
- No expected direction. The entry is there to anchor a baseline reading.
- Primary
- The Pulse dimension most likely to shift. Track this first.
- Secondary
- Also relevant, but a smaller or less consistent shift. Track if Primary is unclear.
Bloodwork to Order
Open These Markers In Your Dashboard
- CRP Pre | Expected Watch During | Expected Watch
Pulse Dimensions to Watch
- Energy During | Expected Up | Primary
- Body During | Expected Watch | Secondary
- Calm During | Expected Watch | Tertiary
Subjective Signals (Daily Voice Card)
- Frequency of colds or general immune feel during the course Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Up
- Injection-site reaction, redness, or any tolerability change Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
Red Flags: Stop and Consult
- Any active or suspected cancer: do not use; immune and neuroendocrine experimentation is unwise there.
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding: do not use; there is no human safety data.
- Injection-site infection, fever, or systemic reaction (possible contaminated grey-market material): stop immediately and seek care.
- Any new or worsening symptom on an unvalidated peptide: stop and reassess, since there is no surveillance to fall back on.
Other interventions for Immune Function
See all ratings →📊 How BioHarmony scoring works
BioHarmony translates a weighted expected-value calculation into a reader-facing 0–10 score. Tier bands: Skip 0–2.9, Caution 3.0–4.4, Neutral 4.5–5.7, Worth Trying 5.8–6.9, Strong Recommend 7.0–8.7, Top-tier 8.8–10.0.
Harm-type downsides (safety risk, side effects, reversibility, dependency) carry a 1.4× precautionary multiplier. Harm weighs more than benefit. Opportunity-type downsides (financial cost, time/effort, opportunity cost) are subtracted at face value.
Use case subratings are independent assessments of how well the intervention addresses specific health goals. They are not components of the overall score. Each subrating reflects the scorer's judgment based on use-case-specific evidence, safety, and effect sizes.
Every dimension is evaluated on a 1–5 scale, and the baseline (1) is subtracted before weighting. A perfect intervention with zero downsides contributes zero penalty rather than a residual floor, so top-tier scores are actually reachable.
EV = Upside − Downside
EV = 2.110 − 0.964 = 1.146
Formula v2.0 maps EV = 0 to score 5.0. Above neutral, EV = +4.00 reaches 10.0; below neutral, EV = −5.36 reaches 0.0. Both sides use the full 5-point half-scale.
Score = 5 + (1.146 / 4.00) × 5 = 6.4 / 10
