ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Evaluation of clinical chemistry using diluted sera in mice and rats.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn preclinical toxicity and efficacy studies, clinical pathology tests play a critical role in detecting pathological alterations, assessing drug effectiveness, and monitoring animal conditions. However, their application is frequently restricted by the limited sample volumes that can be collected from laboratory animals such as mice and young animals. To overcoming this limitation, dilution of samples may be utilized. In this study, we investigated the impact of pre-dilution by using a Toshiba analyzer and saline as the diluent, comparing analytical results from diluted and undiluted specimens in both mice and rats. Seventeen biochemical analytes were assessed in serum samples diluted 2.5-, 5-, 7.5-, and 10-fold, and these results were compared with those of undiluted samples.
resultsWe evaluated mean values, bias, two standard deviations (2SD), and the standard deviation index (SDI). To ensure data obtained from diluted samples are valid and dependable, we applied allowable total error (TEa), defined as the maximum acceptable error for a test result to remain reliable and clinically relevant. The mean values from 2.5-fold diluted samples exhibited no significant difference compared to those from undiluted samples in mice and rats, except Cl, Na, ALB, and TBIL. Furthermore, findings from bias, 2SD, SDI, and TEa analyses indicated that a 2.5-fold sample dilution is suitable for clinical chemistry analysis of multiple analytes, except for Cl, Na, and TBIL in both species.
conclusionsCollectively, these results may serve as a reference for the suitability of diluted serum samples in clinical chemistry analysis. Further studies utilizing various analytical instruments, diluents, or animal species are recommended.
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.