ArticleJournal of extracellular vesicles2026
The Dilution Paradox in Extracellular Vesicle Flow Cytometry.
Article in Journal of extracellular vesicles, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracellular vesicles in breast cancer metastasis: functional insights and advances in single-EV analysis.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Resolving the dilution paradox to improve the interpretation of extracellular vesicle biomarker studies.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concentrations of extracellular vesicles (EVs) can be measured by flow cytometry, which detects fluorescence and light scattering signals from single particles. To ensure single particle detection, plasma samples are diluted based on their particle concentration, which can differ 100-fold between samples. Here we studied how sample dilution affects EV detection by flow cytometry. EVs were measured in human plasma (i) with different concentrations of spiked-in purified lipoproteins, (ii) at different dilutions, and (iii) using either scatter-triggering or fluorescence-triggering. In addition, the reliability of two published clinical EV studies was evaluated using an analytical model. Our results show that the minimum dilution factor to prevent swarm detection by the light scattering detector can exceed the maximum dilution factor that ensures labelled EVs outnumber fluorescent background events. This 'dilution paradox' precludes reliable detection of both fluorescence and light scattering signals of EVs for some samples. In the two clinical studies, 30% and 65% of the measurements were unreliable, depending on the label used. Therefore, results from previous studies should be re-evaluated. The dilution paradox might be overcome by using fluorescence-triggering at a fixed sample dilution, removing non-EV particles from the sample, removing fluorescent particulates from staining reagents, and setting stricter inclusion criteria.
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.