ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Resolving the dilution paradox to improve the interpretation of extracellular vesicle biomarker studies.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measurement of extracellular vesicles using flow cytometry: friend or foe?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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Concentrations of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and other particles are measured in plasma for biomarker exploration. A commonly used method, flow cytometry, requires plasma dilution to ensure single-particle detection. Since plasma EVs are outnumbered by variable concentrations of lipoproteins, dilution differs between the plasma samples. Dilution can result in misidentification of fluorescent background signals as labeled EVs. This phenomenon, called the dilution paradox, leads to overestimation of plasma EV concentrations, and likely impacts conclusions from earlier performed biomarker studies. Objectives: This study reevaluated earlier conclusions from our clinical biomarker studies Antiplatelet Therapy Effect on Extracellular Vesicles (AFFECT EV) and Circulating Nanotraces to Identify the Cause of Stroke (CINTICS), by taking the dilution paradox into account. Methods: We developed a model that quantifies the fluorescent background and estimates whether a flow cytometry measurement is dominated by fluorescent background, that is, if the measurement is unreliable. This model was applied to the original datasets of the AFFECT EV and CINTICS studies to identify and exclude unreliable measurements. We investigated whether exclusion of unreliable data affects the original conclusions. Results: Our model estimated that 47% (1156/2457) of the evaluated measurements are unreliable, and conclusions from both biomarker studies required adjustment. Conclusion: Our model improves reliability and reproducibility of EV concentration measurements using flow cytometry. We recommend to reanalyze earlier EV flow cytometry studies using our model and to use a fixed dilution factor in future EV flow cytometry studies to enable reliable EV concentration measurements.
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.