ReviewJournal of proteomics2014
Proteomics quality and standard: from a regulatory perspective.
Review in Journal of proteomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- QCloud: A cloud-based quality control system for mass spectrometry-based proteomics laboratories.PloS one · 2018Article
- Comparative analysis of constitutive proteome between resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes regarding to late blight.Functional & integrative genomics · 2018Article
- Biomarker discovery in mass spectrometry-based urinary proteomics.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2016Review
- Unravelling associations between unassigned mass spectrometry peaks with frequent itemset mining techniques.Proteome science · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Proteomics has emerged as a rapidly expanding field dealing with large-scale protein analyses. It is anticipated that proteomics data will be increasingly submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for biomarker qualification or in conjunction with applications for the approval of drugs, medical devices, and other FDA-regulated consumer products. To date, however, no established guideline has been available regarding the generation, submission and assessment of the quality of proteomics data that will be reviewed by regulatory agencies for decision making. Therefore, this commentary is aimed at provoking some thoughts and debates towards developing a framework which can guide future proteomics data submission. The ultimate goal is to establish quality control standards for proteomics data generation and evaluation, and to prepare government agencies such as the FDA to meet future obligations utilizing proteomics data to support regulatory decision.
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.