Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00083

Adropin and MOTS-c as new peptides: Do levels change in neurodegenerative diseases and ischemic stroke?

Case-control 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.

  • Adropin and MOTS-c as new peptides: Do levels change in neurodegenerative diseases and ischemic stroke?primary · Journal of biochemical and molecular toxicology · 2022-10-27 · PMID 36303331 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Patients with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, acute ischemic stroke or multiple sclerosis (32 per subgroup) and group-appropriate controls
Conditions
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Acute ischemic stroke, Multiple sclerosis
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): The authors suggest that adropin may be a potentially important marker in Alzheimer's disease and MOTS-c in acute ischemic stroke and Alzheimer's disease. They call for further studies on links with metabolic profiles.

    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 plasma MOTS-c levels were measured as a biomarker. No MOTS-c was administered, so no treatment effect can be inferred.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and the p-values in it appear truncated, which limits appraisal.
    • inappropriate population: Endogenous peptide levels were compared between patients and controls. MOTS-c was not administered, so the study cannot inform effects or safety of giving it.
    • confounding: This is an observational comparison of biomarker levels. Correlations with laboratory parameters are reported without any stated adjustment.

    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 36303331, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 36303331, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 36303331, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 36303331, abstract (Background, sentence 1; 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).