ArticleAJOG global reports2023
Comparative predictive power of serum vs plasma proteomic signatures in feto-maternal medicine.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic Proteome Profiling to Differentiate Primary Glomerular Diseases.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: A systematic approach to integrating serum and plasma proteomic datasets for biomarker studies.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of serum as an alternative matrix to plasma for NULISA‑based proteomic blood biomarker measurements.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multi-Omics for Mothers and Infants (MOMI) Consortium: a global initiative to study adverse pregnancy outcomes.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- ANGPTL3 in the Peripheral Circulation Is Associated with Resistance to Anti-PD1 Therapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Large-scale proteome profiling identifies circulating biomarkers for disease activity and organ involvement in ANCA-associated vasculitides.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Plasma vs. serum: which is better for proteomic blood biomarker analysis? Evaluation of the novel NULISA platform.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Biomarkers in the Newborn with Fetal Growth Retardation and Early Impairment of Heart Function.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2025Article
- A Method for Comparing Proteins Measured in Serum and Plasma by Olink Proximity Extension Assay.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2025Article
- Proteomic Profiling Reveals TPR and FGA as Predictive Serum Biomarkers of Relapse to First- and Second-Generation EGFR-TKIs in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- SAPrIm 2.0: a semi-automated protocol for mid-throughput soluble HLA immunopeptidomics.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Prognostic Value of Circulating Biomarkers of Fibrotic Remodeling in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Predicting Preterm Birth Using Proteomics.Clinics in perinatology · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood proteins are frequently measured in serum or plasma, because they provide a wealth of information. Differences in the ex vivo processing of serum and plasma raise concerns that proteomic health and disease signatures derived from serum or plasma differ in content and quality. However, little is known about their respective power to predict feto-maternal health outcomes. Predictive power is a sentinel characteristic to determine the clinical use of biosignatures.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the power of serum and plasma proteomic signatures to predict a physiological pregnancy outcome. STUDY
designPaired serum and plasma samples from 73 women were obtained from biorepositories of a multinational prospective cohort study on pregnancy outcomes. Gestational age at the time of sampling was the predicted outcome, because the proteomic signatures have been validated for such a prediction. Multivariate and cross-validated models were independently derived for serum and plasma proteins.
resultsA total of 1116 proteins were measured in 88 paired samples from 73 women with a highly multiplexed platform using proximity extension technology (Olink Proteomics Inc, Watertown, MA). The plasma proteomic signature showed a higher predictive power (R=0.64; confidence interval, 0.42-0.79;
conclusionFindings suggest that serum proteomics are less informative than plasma proteomics. They are compatible with the view that the partial ex-vivo degradation and modification of serum proteins during sample processing are an underlying reason. The rationale for collecting and analyzing serum and plasma samples should be carefully considered when deriving proteomic biosignatures to ascertain that specimens of the highest scientific and clinical yield are processed. Findings suggest that plasma is the preferred matrix.
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.