ArticlePloS one2026
The promise of deep urine proteomics for diagnosis of cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrine offers a noninvasive and low-cost source of disease biomarkers, yet most proteomic studies have targeted single conditions. Using deep proteomic profiling and machine learning, we evaluated whether urinary protein signatures distinguish early-stage cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases from healthy controls.
methodsThis case-control diagnostic accuracy study analyzed urine samples from the Ukraine Association of Biobank (UAB), collected during routine medical check-ups. The study included 22 patients each with kidney, bladder, melanoma, prostate, ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers; 22 with multiple sclerosis (MS); 22 with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH); and 66 healthy controls, yielding 264 samples analyzed in September 2023. Proteomic assays were performed using the Olink Explore 3072 platform, with laboratory personnel blinded to disease status. Urine proteomes were profiled to identify disease-specific protein signatures. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of multiprotein urine panels for each disease compared with healthy controls, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with sensitivity and specificity calculated at a prespecified threshold.
resultsExpected sex‑specific differences (KLK3, MSMB higher in males; KLK8, KLK13 higher in females) supported assay validity. Three expression patterns were observed: (1) few strong, symmetric signals in melanoma and endometrial cancer; (2) asymmetry with many up‑regulated proteins in cervical, ovarian, and prostate cancers and in MS; and (3) broad up‑regulation in kidney and bladder cancers and in MASH. Multiprotein models outperformed single proteins, plateauing at five to seven. Maximum AUCs ranged from 0.88 (MS) to 0.98 0.97 (ovarian cancer), with AUCs ≥ 0.95 for seven of nine diseases. Some proteins (e.g., C9orf40, PPY) showed cross‑disease importance.
conclusionsUrine proteomics identified disease‑related signals across cancer and metabolic conditions and may enable accurate, noninvasive classification using multiprotein panels, but given the exploratory design and its limitations, the reported accuracies should be regarded as upper-bound estimates requiring prospective validation.
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.