ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Assessment of Salivary Biomarkers of Gastric Ulcer in Horses from a Clinical Perspective.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Salivary Biomarkers of Gastric Ulcer in Horses from a Clinical Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study arises from the search for non-invasive diagnostic alternatives for equine gastric ulceration (EGUS), which is prevalent, clinically variable and only confirmed by gastroscopy. The aim is to quantify five salivary biomarkers (IL1-F5, PIP, CA VI, serotransferrin, albumin) under clinical conditions by validated assays and analyse their diagnostic value. Horses were grouped in No EGUS (neither clinical signs of EGUS nor gastric lesions), EGUS non-clinical (apparently no clinical signs of EGUS but with gastric lesions), and EGUS clinical (obvious clinical signs of EGUS and with gastric lesions). The concentration of 5 analytes could be quantified using sandwich ELISA assays, with high precision (CV: 6.79-12.38%) and accuracy (>95%). Mean salivary levels of IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin and albumin were significantly higher in EGUS clinical horses compared to No EGUS horses, whereas PIP showed no statistical significance. EGUS non-clinical horses showed statistical differences with No EGUS horses for PIP and albumin. In addition, IL1-F5, CA-VI, serotransferrin and albumin showed moderate accuracy to distinguish between No EGUS and EGUS clinical horses (AUC ≥ 0.8), with sensitivity and specificity greater than 77% and 65%, respectively. Therefore, these biomarkers could be a promising starting point for screening horse that might have EGUS in practice.
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.