ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
A Technical Evaluation of Plasma Proteomics Technologies.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plasma proteomic technologies are rapidly evolving and of critical importance to the field of biomedical research. Here we report a technical evaluation of six notable plasma proteomic technologies - unenriched (Neat), Acid depletion, PreOmics ENRICHplus, Mag-Net, Seer Proteograph XT, Olink Explore HT. The methods were compared on proteomic depth, reproducibility, linearity, tolerance to lipid interference, and limit of detection/quantification. In total we performed 618 LC-MS/MS experiments and 93 Olink Explore HT assays. The Seer method achieved the greatest proteomic depth (∼4,500), while Olink detected ∼2,600 proteins. Other MS-based methods ranged from ∼500-2,200. Neat, Mag-Net, Seer, and Olink had strong reproducibility, while PreOmics and Acid showed higher variability. All MS methods showed good linearity with spiked-in C-Reactive Protein (CRP); CRP was surprisingly not in the Olink assay. None of the methods were affected by lipid interference. Seer had more than double the number of quantifiable proteins (4,800) for both LOD and LOQ than the next best method. Olink was comparable to Neat and Mag-Net for LOD, but worse for LOQ. Finally, we tested the applicability of these methods for detecting differences between healthy and cancer groups in a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort.
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.