Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00042

The Association Between Serum MOTS-c Levels and Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Cross-sectional study · 72 participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (other)

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • The Association Between Serum MOTS-c Levels and Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cross-Sectional Study.primary · Biomedicines · 2026-04-17 · PMID 42072458 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, grouped by presence (n=34) or absence (n=38) of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury.
Conditions
Acute myocardial infarction, Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
72
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

    What the authors reported

    As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

    Adverse events

    None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): Higher postoperative peripheral serum MOTS-c levels were an independent protective factor against MIRI in AMI patients and may help predict MIRI. Use as a standalone predictor needs validation in larger studies with dynamic monitoring.

    Peptide Library’s assessment

    An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

    Limitations

    • inappropriate population: MOTS-c was measured as an endogenous biomarker and never administered, so the study cannot inform effects of giving the compound.
    • confounding: The cross-sectional association analysis is vulnerable to confounding despite multivariate logistic regression. The abstract shows the groups differed in many clinical characteristics.
    • small or imprecise: Only 72 patients were enrolled, and the authors themselves call for larger-scale studies.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and its results section is truncated, so the effect estimates cannot be extracted.
    • no control group: Cross-sectional comparison of endogenous levels between MIRI and non-MIRI groups. No MOTS-c intervention or comparator was given.
    • inappropriate endpoint: The outcome is an association between a circulating biomarker and MIRI. It does not test a MOTS-c intervention for efficacy or safety.

    No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • author_conclusion: PMID 42072458, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 42072458, title (title) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 42072458, abstract (Conclusions, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 42072458, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 42072458, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

    These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).