Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00150

Comparative proteomic analysis of plasma of children with congenital heart disease.

Case-control study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (other)

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 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.

  • Comparative proteomic analysis of plasma of children with congenital heart disease.primary · Electrophoresis · 2019-05-14 · PMID 31070245 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Children with ventricular septal defect (congenital heart disease) and healthy control children. The study had a discovery proteomic cohort and a separate ELISA validation cohort.
Conditions
Ventricular septal defect, Congenital heart disease
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Non-US government research support (per PubMed publication type); funder not named.

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): Plasma proteins differed between children with VSD and healthy children. ALDOB and thymosin beta-4 had the highest ROC AUCs among the candidate proteins and might serve as potential biomarkers for identifying VSD.

    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: Thymosin beta-4 was measured only as an endogenous plasma biomarker. It was never administered, so no treatment effect or safety can be assessed.
    • abstract only: Only the PubMed abstract is available, and it gives no full methods or detailed results.
    • small or imprecise: The discovery cohort enrolled only eight VSD subjects and eleven healthy children.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous plasma Tβ4 was measured as a diagnostic biomarker. No compound was administered, so the study cannot inform treatment efficacy or safety.

    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 31070245, abstract (final two sentences) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 31070245, abstract (sentences 2 and 5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 31070245, abstract (sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 31070245, abstract (sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 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).