Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37645494›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2023

Foresight in clinical proteomics: current status, ethical considerations, and future perspectives.

Filip Mundt, Nicolai J Wewer Albrechtsen, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Peter Treit, Medini Ghodgaonkar-Steger, Martina O'Flaherty, Reinout Raijmakers, Juan Antonio Vizcaíno, Albert J R Heck, Matthias Mann

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Filip MundtNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8622-2971
Nicolai J Wewer AlbrechtsenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4230-5753
Sebastian Porsdam MannFaculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Peter TreitMax Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Martinsried, Germany.
Medini Ghodgaonkar-StegerMax Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Martinsried, Germany.
Martina O'FlahertyBiomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, Utrecht 3584 CH, The Netherlands.
Reinout RaijmakersBiomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, Utrecht 3584 CH, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6316-6663
Juan Antonio VizcaínoEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3905-4335
Albert J R HeckBiomolecular Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics, Bijvoet Centre for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, Utrecht 3584 CH, The Netherlands.
Matthias MannNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advent of robust and high-throughput mass spectrometric technologies and bioinformatics tools to analyze large data sets, proteomics has penetrated broadly into basic and translational life sciences research. More than 95% of FDA-approved drugs currently target proteins, and most diagnostic tests are protein-based. The introduction of proteomics to the clinic, for instance to guide patient stratification and treatment, is already ongoing. Importantly, ethical challenges come with this success, which must also be adequately addressed by the proteomics and medical communities. Consortium members of the H2020 European Union-funded proteomics initiative: European Proteomics Infrastructure Consortium-providing access (EPIC-XS) met at the Core Technologies for Life Sciences (CTLS) conference to discuss the emerging role and implementation of proteomics in the clinic. The discussion, involving leaders in the field, focused on the current status, related challenges, and future efforts required to make proteomics a more mainstream technology for translational and clinical research. Here we report on that discussion and provide an expert update concerning the feasibility of clinical proteomics, the ethical implications of generating and analyzing large-scale proteomics clinical data, and recommendations to ensure both ethical and effective implementation in real-world applications.

Indexed as

Clinical proteomics; clinical research; ethical challenges

Identifiers

PMID37645494
PMCPMC10446044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.