ArticleAmerican journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council
Saliva sampling method affects performance of a salivary α-amylase biosensor.
Article in American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Well-being and biological cost of family members affected by substance use disorder of others.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2025Article
- Perceived chronic stress influences the effect of acute stress on cognitive flexibility.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Differential responses of salivary cortisol, amylase, and chromogranin A to academic stress.PloS one · 2021Article
- Current methods for stress marker detection in saliva.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2020Review
- Salivary Alpha-Amylase as a Biomarker of Stress in Behavioral Medicine.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Performance Evaluation of a Salivary Amylase Biosensor for Stress Assessment in Military Field Research.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPrompted by the discordance between a standardized salivary alpha-amylase (sAA) biosensor applied in clinical settings and a reference laboratory analyzer, we examined the impact of the saliva sampling method on the analytic performance of the biosensor.
methodsDirect mouth readings using the biosensor from 31 normal, healthy volunteers were compared to biosensor and conventional assay readings obtained from saliva samples collected concurrently by passive drool and processed in three different ways (unprocessed, thawed, and thawed and centrifuged).
resultsThe direct readings from the mouth showed consistently lower sAA values (Ps < 0.01) compared to all other combinations of sample processing and quantification platforms (biosensor vs. conventional assay). Readings obtained from passive drool saliva were strongly correlated with one another, and Bland-Altman plots of agreement indicated a smaller discrepancy between conventional and biosensor readings obtained with passive drool when compared to the direct mouth readings.
conclusionsOur study indicates that the analytical performance of the sAA biosensor is influenced significantly by the saliva sampling method. In contrast to the relatively imprecise direct mouth measurements, biosensor sAA levels established indirectly from passive drool saliva samples provide more accurate estimation of sAA levels, even after intermediary processing steps (e.g., freezing, thawing, centrifugation).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.