ArticleScientific reports2026
Biochemical profiling provides a low-cost and globally accessible method to detect falsified vaccines and insulin.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For many decades, there have been numerous reported cases of falsified liquid medical products, including vaccine and insulin preparations worldwide, but to date, there has been a lack of affordable and accessible analytical methods for biological medicines and vaccine authenticity testing. A conventional clinical chemistry analyser (Abbott Architect c16000) was used to determine the concentrations of analytes in genuine liquid biological products (vaccines and insulin) and falsified vaccine surrogates. Eight analytes were measured for each sample: sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, glucose and protein. Each genuine liquid product had unique concentrations of analytes when tested using the eight methods applied, allowing clear differentiation from the falsified surrogates. In a blinded study, reproducibility was significantly high when the samples were run intra- and inter-batch up to 9 times over 9 different days, and it was possible to identify most of the samples by analyte presence alone. Imprecision was < 1.0 CV% for ion-selective electrode methods and typically < 5 CV% for spectrophotometric methods. A decision tree was created which was able to identify all samples. We demonstrate for the first time that a conventional clinical chemistry analyser provides a low-cost method to accurately differentiate genuine products from falsified surrogate liquid medicines and vaccines. This novel method has the potential to be used globally due to widespread use of clinical chemistry analysers in hospitals across the world, including in low- and middle-income countries where many cases of falsified medicines have been identified.
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.