ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024
A micro-costing study of mass-spectrometry based quantitative proteomics testing applied to the diagnostic pipeline of mitochondrial and other rare disorders.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antenatal Presentation of MRPS22-Related Mitochondrial Disease Confirmed With Rapid Proteomics.JIMD reports · 2026Article
- Detecting chromatin state alterations in PBMCs associated with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- From Identification to Insight: Making Full Use of the Diagnostic Potential of MS/MS Proteotyping in Clinical Microbiology Using Efficient Bioinformatics.Journal of proteome research · 2025Review
- The $10 proteome: low-cost, deep and quantitative proteome profiling of limited sample amounts using the Orbitrap Astral and timsTOF Ultra 2 mass spectrometers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Review: Utility of mass spectrometry in rare disease research and diagnosis.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics has a demonstrated utility in increasing the diagnostic yield of mitochondrial disorders (MDs) and other rare diseases. However, for this technology to be widely adopted in routine clinical practice, it is crucial to accurately estimate delivery costs. Resource use and unit costs required to undertake a proteomics test were measured and categorized into consumables, equipment, and labor. Unit costs were aggregated to obtain a total cost per patient, reported in 2023 Australian dollars (AUD). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analysis were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty and identify key cost drivers.
resultsThe mean cost of a proteomics test was $897 (US$ 607) per patient (95% CI: $734-$1,111). Labor comprised 53% of the total costs. At $342 (US$ 228) per patient, liquid chromatography coupled tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was the most expensive non-salary component. An integrated analysis pipeline where all the standard analysis are performed automatically, as well as discounts or subsidized LC-MS/MS equipment or consumables can lower the cost per test.
conclusionsProteomics testing provide a lower-cost option and wider application compared to respiratory chain enzymology for mitochondrial disorders and potentially other functional assays in Australia. Our analysis suggests that streamlining and automating workflows can reduce labor costs. Using PBMC samples may be a cheaper and more efficient alternative to generating fibroblasts, although their use has not been extensively tested yet. Use of fibroblasts could potentially lower costs when fibroblasts are already available by avoiding the expense of isolating PBMCs. A joint evaluation of the health and economic implications of proteomics is now needed to support its introduction to routine clinical care.
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.