Study record
Comparative Analysis of Biomarkers in Type 2 Diabetes Patients With and Without Comorbidities: Insights Into the Role of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease
Savvopoulos S, Hatzikirou H, Jelinek HF · Biomark Insights · 2024
Human obs.Endogenous MOTS-c measuredEvidence tier B
What this study reported
Reported that MOTS-c, together with the GSH/GSSG ratio, IL-1β and 8-isoprostane, was among the variables separating prediabetes from type 2 diabetes in a linear discriminant analysis of first-attendance data.
Limitations
Cross-sectional single-time-point data with no follow-up; unequal group sizes and limited statistical detail in the abstract; MOTS-c is one of many biomarkers screened, raising multiple-comparison concerns.
Study record
| Study model | Human observational |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Endogenous MOTS-c measuredNaturally occurring MOTS-c was measured; nothing was given. |
| Species | human |
| System studied | First-attendance biomarker panel including MOTS-c across control, prediabetes and type 2 diabetes groups with and without hypertension or cardiovascular disease |
| Population | patients classified as control, prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, with and without hypertension and cardiovascular disease |
| Design | Cross-sectional classification study |
| Sample size as reported | 581 patients (156 control, 148 hypertension, 61 cardiovascular disease, 216 both) |
| Control group | patients without diabetes |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | MOTS-c; humanin; GSH/GSSG ratio; IL-1β; 8-isoprostane; complement C5a |
| Pathways measured | Oxidative stress · Inflammation |
| Research areas | Metabolic · Cardiovascular |
| Evidence tier | B — Other human study |
| Publication types | Journal Article |
Appraisal
Each dimension is recorded separately and never combined into a single score. A study can be well controlled and still tell you little about people.
- Relevance to MOTS-c
- Indirect
- Model applicability
- Human
- Sample size
- Adequate
- Controls
- Appropriate
- Outcome validity
- Exploratory
- Support for its own conclusion
- Weak
Provenance
- Bibliographic fields retrieved from PubMed E-utilities efetch (title, journal, date, authors, DOI) on 2026-11-11.
- Annotated from the published abstract.
- Editorial review: approved (2026-11-11).
- Classification follows the site methodology; the record describes the study, not what MOTS-c does in people.