Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00193

Contribution of cerebrospinal fluid thymosin β4 levels to the clinical differentiation of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

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.

  • Contribution of cerebrospinal fluid thymosin β4 levels to the clinical differentiation of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.primary · Archives of neurology · 2012-07-01 · PMID 22431836 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Patients with neuropathologically confirmed Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (21), frontotemporal dementia (15), probable Alzheimer disease (18) and rapid-onset progressive dementia (9), plus 25 non-cognitively impaired controls.
Conditions
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer disease, Rapid-onset progressive dementia
Setting
National Research Council, Cosenza, Italy (Italy)
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 concluded that cerebrospinal fluid thymosin β4 levels measured by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry may help discriminate Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from other forms of dementia.

    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: Thymosin β4 is measured as an endogenous diagnostic biomarker, not given as an intervention, so the study says nothing about its effects.
    • abstract only: Only the PubMed abstract is available, so methods, sampling and funding details cannot be checked.
    • inappropriate population: Thymosin β4 was measured as an endogenous diagnostic marker in dementia patients. It was not administered, so the study gives no efficacy or safety evidence for the compound.

    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 22431836, abstract (Conclusion section, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 22431836, abstract (Design section, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 22431836, abstract (Objective and Design sections) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 22431836, abstract (Patients section, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 22431836, abstract (Patients section, sentences 1-2) · 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).