ArticleBiology of reproduction2024
Evaluation of novel biomarkers for early pregnancy outcome prediction†.
Article in Biology of reproduction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Humoral pregnancy analyses reveal strategies for fetal protection and aberrancy in miscarriage.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Lipidomic Signature of Pregnant and Postpartum Females by Longitudinal and Transversal Evaluation: Putative Biomarkers Determined by UHPLC-QTOF-ESIMetabolites · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess performance and discriminatory capacity of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays of biomarkers for predicting first trimester pregnancy outcome in a multi-center cohort.
designIn a case-control study at three academic centers of women with pain and bleeding in early pregnancy, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays of biomarkers were screened for assay performance. Performance was assessed via functional sensitivity, assay reportable range, recovery/linearity, and intra-assay precision (%Coefficient of Variation). Top candidates were analyzed for discriminatory capacity for viability and location among 210 women with tubal ectopic pregnancy, viable intrauterine pregnancy, or miscarriage. Assay discrimination was assessed by visual plots, area under the curve with 95% confidence intervals, and measures of central tendency with two-sample t-tests.
resultsOf 25 biomarkers evaluated, 22 demonstrated good or acceptable assay performance. Transgelin-2, oviductal glycoprotein, and integrin-linked kinase were rejected due to poor performance. The best biomarkers for discrimination of pregnancy location were pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 9, pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1, kisspeptin (KISS1), pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 3, and beta parvin (PARVB). The best biomarkers for discrimination of pregnancy viability were pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 9, pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 3, EH domain-containing protein 3, KISS1, WAP four-disulfide core domain protein 2 (HE4), quiescin sulfhydryl oxidase 2, and pregnancy-specific beta-1-glycoprotein 1.
conclusionPerformance of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays was acceptable for a panel of novel biomarkers to predict early pregnancy outcome. Of these, six and seven candidates demonstrated good discriminatory capacity of pregnancy location and viability, respectively, when validated in a distinct external population. Four markers demonstrated good discrimination for both location and viability.
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.