ArticlePloS one2024
Interlaboratory comparison of high-throughput protein biomarker assay quantifications for radiation exposure classification.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In the event of a widespread radiological incident, thousands of individuals will require rapid assessment of exposure using validated biodosimetry assays to inform clinical triage. In this scenario, multiple biodosimetry laboratories may be necessary for large-volume sample processing. To meet this need, we have developed a high-throughput assay for the rapid measurement of intracellular protein biomarkers in human peripheral blood samples using an Imaging Flow Cytometry (IFC) platform. The objective of this work was to harmonize and validate the reproducibility of our blood biomarker assay for radiation exposure across three IFC instruments, two located at Columbia University (CU) and the third at Health Canada. The Center for Radiological Research (CRR) at CU served as the central laboratory and reference instrument, where samples were prepared in triplicate, labeled with two radiation responsive leukocyte biomarkers (BAX and phosphor-p53 (Ser37)), and distributed for simultaneous interrogation by each IFC. Initial tests showed that significantly different baseline biomarker measurements were generated on each instrument when using the same acquisition settings, suggesting that harmonization of signal intensities is necessary. Subsequent tests harmonized biomarker measurements after irradiation by modulating laser intensity using two reference materials: unstained samples and standardized rainbow beads. Both methods generated measurements on each instrument without significant differences between the new and references instruments, allowing for the use of one master template to quantify biomarker expression across multiple instruments. Deming regression analyses of 0-5 Gy dose-response curves showed overall good correlation of BAX and p53 values across new and reference instruments. While Bland-Altman analyses indicated low to moderate instrument biases, ROC Curve analyses ultimately show successful discrimination between exposed and unexposed samples on each instrument (AUC values > 0.85).
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.