ArticleHealth science reports2024
Proteomic exploration of potential blood biomarkers in haemophilic arthropathy.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The biomarkers uCTX-II, CS846 and IGF-1 are associated with clinical and ultrasound scores in haemophilic arthropathy: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- RE: Proteomic Exploration of Potential Blood Biomarkers in Haemophilic Arthropathy.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Proteomic exploration of potential blood biomarkers in haemophilic arthropathy.Health science reports · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The pathophysiology of haemophilic arthropathy (HA) is complex and largely undefined. Proteomic analyses provide insights into the intricate mechanisms of the HA.Our study aimed to identify differentially expressed proteins in relation to the severity of HA, explore their pathophysiological roles, and evaluate their potential as HA biomarkers. Methods: Our cross-sectional observational study encompassed 30 HA patients and 15 healthy subjects. Plasma samples were pooled into three groups of 15 samples from those with severe haemophilic arthropathy (sHA), mild haemophilic arthropathy (mHA) and healthy controls. Proteomic analysis was performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The severity of HA was assessed using the World Federation of Haemophilia Physical Examination Score and ultrasonography following the Haemophilia Early Arthropathy Detection with Ultrasound (HEAD-US) guidelines. Results: A total of 788 proteins were identified, with 97% of the uniquely identified proteins being expressed in all analysed groups. We identified several up and downregulated proteins across the groups that were mainly related to inflammatory and immunity-modulating processes, as well as joint degeneration. We highlighted ten proteins relevant for the development of HA: cathepsin G, endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 2, S100-A9, insulin-like growth factor I, apolipoprotein (a), osteopontin, pregnancy zone protein, cartilage oligomeric matrix protein, CD44, and cadherin-related family member 2. Conclusion: Our analysis identified several proteins that shed further light on the distinctive pathogenesis of HA and could serve for biomarker research. However, these results need to be validated on a larger patient group.
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.