Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00196

Distribution of thymic hormones in thymic tumors and myasthenic thymus.

Cross-sectional study · 44 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.

  • Distribution of thymic hormones in thymic tumors and myasthenic thymus.primary · Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China. Part B, Life sciences · 1996-01-01 · PMID 8765340

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Patients undergoing thoracic surgery who provided thymus or thymic tumor tissue: histologically normal controls, thymoma, thymic carcinoma and myasthenic thymus.
Conditions
Thymoma, Thymic carcinoma, Myasthenia gravis
Setting
Surgical tissue specimens from thoracic operations
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
44
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Non-U.S. government research support (per publication type); funder not named.
Authors’ conflicts
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): Thymic hormone content was raised in thymomas, lowered in thymic carcinoma and not significantly changed in myasthenic thymus compared with age-matched normal thymus, supporting the view that only thymomas overproduce thymic hormones.

    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 population: The study measured endogenous hormone levels in excised tissue and did not administer thymosin beta 4 to anyone.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, so methods and assay details cannot be appraised.
    • small or imprecise: The tumor and myasthenia groups were very small, with three to eight specimens each.
    • inappropriate endpoint: The study measured endogenous tissue content, a surrogate. It gives no information on the effects or safety of giving thymosin beta 4.
    • confounding: Comparison with an age-related curve may be confounded by other patient factors, and the abstract does not say how these were handled.

    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 8765340, abstract (final two sentences) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 8765340, abstract (sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 8765340, abstract (sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 8765340, abstract (sentences 2-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 8765340, abstract (sentence 3) · 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).