ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Development of a cloud-based flow rate tool for eNAMPT biomarker detection.
Article in PNAS nexus, 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.
- Rapid antithrombin assay from human blood plasma utilizing smartphone-based flow observation on paper chips.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Capillary flow velocity-based length identification of PCR and RPA products on paper microfluidic chips.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increased levels of extracellular nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (eNAMPT) are increasingly recognized as a highly useful biomarker of inflammatory disease and disease severity. In preclinical animal studies, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes eNAMPT has been generated to successfully reduce the extent of inflammatory cascade activation. Thus, the rapid detection of eNAMPT concentration in plasma samples at the point of care (POC) would be of great utility in assessing the benefit of administering an anti-eNAMPT therapeutic. To determine the feasibility of this POC test, we conducted a particle immunoagglutination assay on a paper microfluidic platform and quantified its extent with a flow rate measurement in less than 1 min. A smartphone and cloud-based Google Colab were used to analyze the flow rates automatically. A horizontal flow model and an immunoagglutination binding model were evaluated to optimize the detection time, sample dilution, and particle concentration. This assay successfully detected eNAMPT in both human whole blood and plasma samples (diluted to 10 and 1%), with the limit of detection of 1-20 pg/mL (equivalent to 0.1-0.2 ng/mL in undiluted blood and plasma) and a linear range of 5-40 pg/mL. Furthermore, the smartphone POC assay distinguished clinical samples with low, mid, and high eNAMPT concentrations. Together, these results indicate this POC assay, which utilizes low-cost materials, time-effective methods, and a straightforward immunoassay (without surface immobilization), may reliably allow rapid determination of eNAMPT blood/plasma levels to advantage patient stratification in clinical trials and guide ALT-100 mAb therapeutic decision-making.
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.