ArticleMolecular neurobiology2025
miRNA Biomarkers Diagnose Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in Circulating Blood.
Article in Molecular neurobiology, 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.
- Central nervous system concentrations of nano- and microplastics and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Brain communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A rapid, accurate diagnostic test for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) would reduce diagnostic delays and improve patient outcomes. We extracted eight circulating miRNAs from 788 blood plasma samples and analyzed them using qPCR for ALS diagnostic accuracy. The biomarker parameters were established previously using 449 individual blood samples and applied prospectively to an independent cohort for validation of a predictive model. The primary outcome was ALS classification accuracy as measured by diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). The secondary outcome was comparative fold-regulation values determined prior to data collection. The diagnostic test had an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), with 97% sensitivity (95% CI 96-98), 93% specificity (95% CI 90-96), 93% PPV (95% CI 91-96), and 97% NPV (95% CI 96-98). The fold-regulation values exceeded or were equal to prior calculated values. Streamlined methods resulted in higher diagnostic accuracy, cut both assay time and cost, reduced technical barriers, and enhances the feasibility for widespread clinical adoption. The high accuracy of this diagnostic biomarker suggests that continued evaluation is warranted.
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.