Study record
Could MOTS-c Levels in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Be an Indicator for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease?
Girişgen İ, Altıncık SA, Avcı E et al. · J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol · 2025
Human obs.Endogenous MOTS-c measuredEvidence tier B
What this study reported
Measured lower serum MOTS-c in children with type 1 diabetes than in healthy children, with no differences between subgroups defined by diabetes duration, metabolic control or renal findings, and no predictive association with diabetic kidney disease in regression analysis.
Limitations
Controls were significantly younger than patients, and the single-centre design used one measurement per child; subgroup analyses were small and the study is cross-sectional.
Study record
| Study model | Human observational |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Endogenous MOTS-c measuredNaturally occurring MOTS-c was measured; nothing was given. |
| Species | human |
| System studied | Serum MOTS-c and renal markers in children with type 1 diabetes and healthy children |
| Population | children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and healthy children |
| Design | Case-control study |
| Sample size as reported | 143 children (82 with type 1 diabetes, 61 controls) |
| Control group | healthy children |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | serum MOTS-c; urinary albumin excretion; estimated glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c |
| Pathways measured | Oxidative stress |
| Research areas | Metabolic · Kidney |
| 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
- Direct
- Model applicability
- Human
- Sample size
- Adequate
- Controls
- Limited
- Outcome validity
- Surrogate
- Support for its own conclusion
- Moderate
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.