ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Exploratory Study on Application of MALDI-TOF-MS to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Human Saliva.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovations in MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry: Bridging modern diagnostics and historical insights.Open life sciences · 2025Review
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Microbial Diagnosis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Harnessing of Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Validation of a MALDI-TOF MS Method for SARS-CoV-2 Detection on the Bruker Biotyper and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: A Brazil-UK Collaborative Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Salivary Protein Profile: Unravelling Molecular Aspects of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Mass Spectrometry Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Detection: Harnessing for Application in Food and Environmental Samples.Viruses · 2022Review
- MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry of saliva samples as a prognostic tool for COVID-19.Journal of oral microbiology · 2022Article
- Proteomics-based mass spectrometry profiling of SARS-CoV-2 infection from human nasopharyngeal samples.Mass spectrometry reviewsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2 has caused a large outbreak since its emergence in December 2019. COVID-19 diagnosis became a priority so as to isolate and treat infected individuals in order to break the contamination chain. Currently, the reference test for COVID-19 diagnosis is the molecular detection (RT-qPCR) of the virus from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Although this sensitive and specific test remains the gold standard, it has several limitations, such as the invasive collection method, the relative high cost and the duration of the test. Moreover, the material shortage to perform tests due to the discrepancy between the high demand for tests and the production capacities puts additional constraints on RT-qPCR. Here, we propose a PCR-free method for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 based on matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) profiling and machine learning (ML) models from salivary samples. Kinetic saliva samples were collected at enrollment and ten and thirty days later (D0, D10 and D30), to assess the classification performance of the ML models compared to the molecular tests performed on NPS specimens. Spectra were generated using an optimized protocol of saliva collection and successive quality control steps were developed to ensure the reliability of spectra. A total of 360 averaged spectra were included in the study. At D0, the comparison of MS spectra from SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (
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.