Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00175

Plasma levels of F-actin and F:G-actin ratio as potential new biomarkers in patients with septic shock.

Cross-sectional 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.

  • Plasma levels of F-actin and F:G-actin ratio as potential new biomarkers in patients with septic shock.primary · Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals · 2016-01-12 · PMID 26754286 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Humans with septic shock, humans with noninfectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and healthy controls.
Conditions
Septic shock, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Listed as Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; funder not named in the record.

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): F-actin is significantly raised in septic shock compared with noninfectious SIRS. The authors propose F-actin and the F:G-actin ratio as potential biomarkers for diagnosing septic shock.

    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 only measured as an endogenous plasma marker, was not administered, and was undetectable in the patient groups.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available; sample sizes, methods and setting are not reported in the record.
    • inappropriate population: Tβ4 was not administered to anyone; it was measured as an endogenous biomarker, so the study gives no data on exogenous treatment.

    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 26754286, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 26754286, abstract (Objective, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • funding: PMID 26754286, title (publication types) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 26754286, abstract (Results, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 26754286, abstract (Objective, sentence 1) · 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).