ArticleBiomolecules2025
Exploring Sample Storage Conditions for the Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Extracted Lipids from Latent Fingerprints.
Article in Biomolecules, 2025. 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.
- Interpol review of fingermark composition and visualization 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Feature Down-Selection to Improve Supervised Classification by Machine Learning on Mass Spectrometry Imaging Data.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lipidomics in Children: Noninvasive Sebum Sampling in Children and Adults Allows for Assessment of Lipidomic Differences According to Age, Sex, and Biological Relatedness.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In large-scale studies, uncontrolled systematic variability introduced during sample preparation, processing, and storage can interfere with the detection of subtle biological signals. This study evaluates storage conditions, including two sample preparation methods and storage durations, to minimize systematic variability in the analysis of extracted lipids from latent fingerprints. In the traditional approach, samples are prepared immediately, stored as lipid extracts, and processed in multiple batches. In an alternative method, samples are stored directly on the deposition foil, and preparation is delayed until all can be processed in a single batch. Storage duration is evaluated to determine if shorter storage with analysis in multiple batches is more effective than longer storage with analysis in a single batch. Our findings demonstrate that storage of latent fingerprint samples on the deposition foil is a viable option, with minimal degradation of key features even after eight months of storage. While some differences in lipid profiles were observed across storage conditions, these differences were minor and would likely have little impact in larger studies where biological variability is greater. These insights offer practical guidance for implementing latent fingerprint sampling in large-scale studies by identifying optimal conditions that preserve sample quality and streamline workflows.
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.