Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00199

Relationship between serum thymosin β4 levels and coronary collateral development.

Cross-sectional study · 190 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.

  • Relationship between serum thymosin β4 levels and coronary collateral development.primary · Coronary artery disease · 2011-01-01 · PMID 21691205 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography with at least one coronary stenosis of 75% or more, grouped by presence or absence of well-developed collateral circulation
Conditions
Coronary artery disease, Coronary stenosis
Setting
Patients undergoing coronary angiography (setting details not stated)
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
190
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 higher serum thymosin β4 levels are independently associated with better coronary collateral development, with good-collateral patients tending to have higher levels.

    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: The study measures endogenous serum thymosin β4 as a biomarker and does not administer the compound, so it cannot inform treatment effects.
    • confounding: The cross-sectional association design cannot establish causality. The abstract gives no detail on adjustment variables.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and its p-value statement is truncated, so full methods and results cannot be appraised.
    • other: Endogenous serum levels were measured and no thymosin β4 was administered, so the study cannot inform treatment effects or safety of 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 21691205, abstract (Conclusion, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 21691205, abstract (Materials and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 21691205, abstract (Results, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 21691205, abstract (Materials and methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 21691205, abstract (Materials and methods, 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).