ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
Comparative evaluation of different MALDI-TOF-MS platforms for plasma IgG N-glycan profiling: impact on analytical performance and clinical conclusions.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a cornerstone technology for high‑throughput immunoglobulin G (IgG) N‑glycan profiling. However, the cross-platform data comparability remains a critical gap. This study systematically evaluated the analytical and clinical consistency of the UltrafleXtreme and the RapifleX® MALDI‑TOF‑MS platforms of Bruker for plasma IgG N‑glycomics. IgG N-glycan profiles from 170 patients with pancreatic cancer and 30 healthy controls were assessed utilizing a standardized workflow. Glycan coverage, intra‑ and inter‑day repeatability, and quantitative agreement (Bland‑Altman analysis) were assessed. The diagnostic performance of individual glycans and combined diagnostic models was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the area under the curve (AUC). The 33 N-glycans detected by the RapifleX® met the quality screening standards, completely encompassing the 20 N-glycans identified by the UltrafleXtreme, along 13 additional low‑abundance species accounting for 2.34% of total abundance. Analytically, the RapifleX® showed superior intra‑day repeatability (median CV 5.38% vs. 11.92%, p < 0.0001), while inter‑day repeatability was comparable (p = 0.8695). Shared N-glycans exhibited excellent quantitative agreement. A two-glycan model, H4N5F1E1 and H5N4F1E2, yielded comparable AUCs for discriminating cancer and controls (0.869 for the UltrafleXtreme vs. 0.871 for the RapifleX®, DeLong test p = 0.8347). Both platforms generate reliable and quantitatively comparable IgG N‑glycan profiles. While the RapifleX® offers enhanced glycome coverage and superior short-term precision, clinical models yield consistent diagnostic conclusions across both generations of instruments. These findings establish critical methodological evidence for cross-platform data integration and instrument selection in large-scale clinical IgG N-glycomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42250139What 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.