Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00061

Relationship between the mitochondria-derived peptide MOTS-c and insulin resistance in obstructive sleep apnea.

Cross-sectional study · 90 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.

  • Relationship between the mitochondria-derived peptide MOTS-c and insulin resistance in obstructive sleep apnea.primary · Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2021-01-04 · PMID 33394327 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Adults with obstructive sleep apnea (70; mild 19, moderate 19, severe 32) and 20 controls with AHI ≤ 5; mean age 50.3 years; 74% male.
Conditions
Obstructive sleep apnea, Insulin resistance, Obesity
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
90
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): Serum MOTS-c level is related to OSA and BMI, and MOTS-c may be a useful new marker of early metabolic disorders in patients with OSA.

    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 endpoint: Endogenous MOTS-c was measured as a biomarker. The compound was never administered, so no effect of MOTS-c can be inferred.
    • confounding: Cross-sectional group comparison with no reported adjustment for BMI, age or sex, which differ with OSA severity.
    • small or imprecise: Only 20 controls and 19 to 32 patients per severity group; effect sizes and intervals are not reported in the abstract.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available and it is truncated, so the full methods and results could not be checked.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 33394327, abstract (Materials and methods, sentence 1; Results, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 33394327, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 33394327, abstract (Materials and methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 33394327, abstract (Materials and methods and Results) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 33394327, abstract (Materials and methods, sentences 2-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 33394327, abstract (Results, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 33394327, abstract (Results, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 33394327, abstract (Results, sentences 4-5) · 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).