Human study PLS-00079
Serum MOTS-c levels remain unchanged in patients with preeclampsia.
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.
- Serum MOTS-c levels remain unchanged in patients with preeclampsia.primary · Ginekologia polska · 2023-01-01 · PMID 39469962 · DOI
Design and participants
- Design
- Case-control study
- Population
- Pregnant patients: 30 with uncomplicated pregnancy, 30 with mild preeclampsia and 30 with severe preeclampsia, admitted to the study center between June 2020 and January 2021.
- Conditions
- Preeclampsia
- Setting
- Single study center (hospital admissions); location not stated in the record
- 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.
Monitoring: Not applicable; no compound was administered.
The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors found no significant relationship between serum MOTS-c and preeclampsia. They call for larger studies to clarify whether MOTS-c could be a biomarker or therapeutic target in preeclampsia.
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: The study measures endogenous MOTS-c levels only. It gives no information on effects of administering MOTS-c.
- small or imprecise: Only 30 patients per group, and the authors themselves state that large-scale research is needed.
- abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record. Methods, funding and conflicts are not reported.
- confounding: Groups differed in smoking and other characteristics, and no adjustment for confounders is reported in the abstract.
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 39469962, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- design: PMID 39469962, abstract (Material and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- limitations: PMID 39469962, abstract (Conclusions, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- participants: PMID 39469962, abstract (Material and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- population: PMID 39469962, abstract (Material and 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).