Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00068

Impact of Radiation Therapy on Serum Humanin and MOTS-c Levels in Patients with Lung or Breast Cancer.

Prospective cohort · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (wrong compound)

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.

  • Impact of Radiation Therapy on Serum Humanin and MOTS-c Levels in Patients with Lung or Breast Cancer.primary · Current radiopharmaceuticals · 2024-01-01 · PMID 38314601 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Prospective cohort
Population
Patients with stage IIIA/IIIB lung cancer (35) and stage IIA/IIB breast cancer (34) receiving radiotherapy, plus healthy volunteers as controls (number not stated)
Conditions
Lung cancer, Breast cancer
Setting
not_stated
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
not_stated
Authors’ conflicts
not_stated

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_stated

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): Authors conclude that increased MOTS-c and decreased humanin play a role in lung and breast cancer, respectively, and that radiotherapy alters MOTS-c levels in lung but not breast cancer patients.

    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

    • other: MOTS-c was measured as an endogenous biomarker and was never administered, so the study gives no evidence on its effects as a treatment.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and its results sentence is truncated, so numeric results are missing.
    • confounding: Observational comparison of cancer patients with healthy volunteers, with no reported adjustment for confounders.
    • inappropriate population: Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy differ from the metabolic-disease and safety populations in the claim questions.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous peptide levels are surrogate biomarkers. No MOTS-c was given, so the study says nothing about the effects or safety of MOTS-c administration.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 38314601, abstract (Methods, sentences 2-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 38314601, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 38314601, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 38314601, abstract (Methods, sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 38314601, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 38314601, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 38314601, abstract (Results, 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).