ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2026
An LC-MS untargeted metabolomic comparison between three blood microsampling devices, whole blood, and plasma.
Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBlood microsampling (BµS) devices collect less than 100 µL of blood, offering a less invasive and more cost-effective alternative to venipuncture. However, its metabolomic comparability to conventional samples remains unclear, and standardized BµS metabolomic workflows are lacking.
objectivesThis study evaluated the impact of using three BµS devices (Mitra
methodsVenous blood from 10 adults (5 males, 5 females) was sampled onto the three devices. First, three agitation conditions (ultrasound, shaker, and homogenizer) were evaluated at three blood concentrations (1.5%, 5.5%, and 11%). The optimized method was then used to compare the metabolite profiles between BµS devices, whole blood, and plasma. Reverse-phase and hydrophilic-interaction chromatography, in positive and negative ionization modes, were combined for liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis.
resultsAll agitation conditions and concentrations proved suitable for BµS untargeted metabolomics. Combining different analytical modes and fragmentation ranges proved helpful for maximizing metabolite coverage. BµS-derived metabolite profiles aligned more closely with whole blood than plasma. Some metabolites were more characteristic of a sample type, whereas others were common across sample types. All sample types enabled sex-based differentiation, with metabolites such as amino acids, lipids, and acylcarnitines driving the separation.
conclusionsThese findings enhance our understanding of BµS metabolite coverage and highlight its potential in human biomonitoring. The choice of device depends on the application and the metabolites of interest, offering flexibility for clinical use and research.
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.