ReviewClinical proteomics2023
Redefining serological diagnostics with immunoaffinity proteomics.
Review in Clinical proteomics, 2023. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extending ImmunoSpotVaccines · 2026Article
- Innovations, Applications, and Future Trends in Veterinary Diagnostic Technologies.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Review
- Omics and Multiomics-Based Diagnostics for Invasive Candidiasis: Toward Precision Medicine.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2025Review
- Towards practical point-of-care quick, ubiquitous, integrated, cost-efficient molecular diagnostic Kit (QUICK) PCR for future pandemic response.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Review
- Opportunities and Challenges of Multiomics for Discovery and Monitoring of Human Pathogens.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
- A Careful Insight into DDI-Type Receptor Layers on the Way to Improvement of Click-Biology-Based Immunosensors.Biosensors · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Serological diagnostics is generally defined as the detection of specific human immunoglobulins developed against viral, bacterial, or parasitic diseases. Serological tests facilitate the detection of past infections, evaluate immune status, and provide prognostic information. Serological assays were traditionally implemented as indirect immunoassays, and their design has not changed for decades. The advantages of straightforward setup and manufacturing, analytical sensitivity and specificity, affordability, and high-throughput measurements were accompanied by limitations such as semi-quantitative measurements, lack of universal reference standards, potential cross-reactivity, and challenges with multiplexing the complete panel of human immunoglobulin isotypes and subclasses. Redesign of conventional serological tests to include multiplex quantification of immunoglobulin isotypes and subclasses, utilize universal reference standards, and minimize cross-reactivity and non-specific binding will facilitate the development of assays with higher diagnostic specificity. Improved serological assays with higher diagnostic specificity will enable screenings of asymptomatic populations and may provide earlier detection of infectious diseases, autoimmune disorders, and cancer. In this review, we present the major clinical needs for serological diagnostics, overview conventional immunoassay detection techniques, present the emerging immunoassay detection technologies, and discuss in detail the advantages and limitations of mass spectrometry and immunoaffinity proteomics for serological diagnostics. Finally, we explore the design of novel immunoaffinity-proteomic assays to evaluate cell-mediated immunity and advance the sequencing of clinically relevant immunoglobulins.
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.