Human study PLS-00072

Evaluation of Coronary Flow Level with Mots-C in Patients with STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI.

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.

Evaluation of Coronary Flow Level with Mots-C in Patients with STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI.primary · Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023-01-09 · PMID 36629605 · DOI

Design and participants

Design: Cross-sectional study
Population: Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, grouped by post-PCI TIMI flow (no-reflow vs angiographic success), and control patients without coronary stenosis >50%.
Conditions: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, No-reflow phenomenon
Setting: Hospital setting for primary PCI; details not stated
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, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

The authors concluded (paraphrased): Authors concluded that low circulating MOTS-C is a strong independent predictor of no-reflow and in-hospital MACE in STEMI patients and may be a prognostic marker with a possible role in STEMI pathogenesis.

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: MOTS-C was only measured as an endogenous biomarker. It was not given as an intervention, so no effect of administration can be inferred.
abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record, and it is truncated in the methods and results sections.
confounding: The observational comparison of STEMI patients with controls cannot separate the association of MOTS-C levels from other patient differences.

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

Claims this study informs

Improves metabolic health: not eligible (not primary study) for “Insulin sensitivity, glucose control or body weight”
Is safe for human administration: not eligible (not primary study) for “Adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations”

Where each value comes from

author_conclusion: PMID 36629605, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
design: PMID 36629605, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
population: PMID 36629605, 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).