Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00056

Could MOTS-c Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Be an Indicator for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease?

Cross-sectional study · Not reported 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.

  • Could MOTS-c Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Be an Indicator for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease?primary · Journal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2024-12-23 · PMID 39711006 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n=82) and healthy control children (n=61)
Conditions
Type 1 diabetes mellitus, Diabetic kidney disease
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
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.

    Monitoring: Not applicable; no compound was administered

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): MOTS-c was lower in children with T1DM than in healthy children, but it was not associated with renal biomarkers and so is not an effective early marker of diabetic kidney disease. HbA1c and diabetes duration were risk factors for microalbuminuria.

    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: Endogenous MOTS-c was measured; no participant received MOTS-c, so the study says nothing about administering the compound.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and its results section is truncated.
    • confounding: The groups differed in mean age (14.3 vs 10.6 years) and in sex ratio.

    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 39711006, abstract (Conclusion) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 39711006, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 39711006, abstract (Methods, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 39711006, abstract (Results, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 39711006, abstract (Objective and Methods) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 39711006, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · 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).