Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39719050›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025

Identification of plasma protein biomarkers for endometriosis and the development of statistical models for disease diagnosis.

E M Schoeman, S Bringans, K Peters, T Casey, C Andronis, L Chen, M Duong, J E Girling, M Healey, B A Boughton and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Global trends in the uptake of specialist diagnostic ultrasound and MRI scans for endometriosis: An international cross-sectional survey.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

E M SchoemanProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0461-6841
S BringansProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
K PetersProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1406-8797
T CaseyProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
C AndronisProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
L ChenProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
M DuongProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
J E GirlingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Melbourne and Gynecology Research Centre, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
M HealeyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Melbourne and Gynecology Research Centre, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
B A BoughtonSchool of Agriculture, Biomedicine and Environment, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
D IsmailProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
J ItoProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
C LamingProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
H LimProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
M MeadProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
M RajuProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
P TanProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
R LipscombeProteomics International, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
S Holdsworth-CarsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Melbourne and Gynecology Research Centre, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
P A W RogersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Melbourne and Gynecology Research Centre, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Future MRF1199715National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1105321The Royal Women's Hospital
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionCan a panel of plasma protein biomarkers be identified to accurately and specifically diagnose endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: A novel panel of 10 plasma protein biomarkers was identified and validated, demonstrating strong predictive accuracy for the diagnosis of endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometriosis poses intricate medical challenges for affected individuals and their physicians, yet diagnosis currently takes an average of 7 years and normally requires invasive laparoscopy. Consequently, the need for a simple, accurate non-invasive diagnostic tool is paramount. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study compared 805 participants across two independent clinical populations, with the status of all endometriosis and symptomatic control samples confirmed by laparoscopy. A proteomics workflow was used to identify and validate plasma protein biomarkers for the diagnosis of endometriosis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsA proteomics discovery experiment identified candidate biomarkers before a targeted mass spectrometry assay was developed and used to compare plasma samples from 464 endometriosis cases, 153 general population controls, and 132 symptomatic controls. Three multivariate models were developed: Model 1 (logistic regression) for endometriosis cases versus general population controls, Model 2 (logistic regression) for rASRM stage II to IV (mild to severe) endometriosis cases versus symptomatic controls, and Model 3 (random forest) for stage IV (severe) endometriosis cases versus symptomatic controls. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A panel of 10 protein biomarkers were identified across the three models which added significant value to clinical factors. Model 3 (severe endometriosis vs symptomatic controls) performed the best with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.997 (95% CI 0.994-1.000). This model could also accurately distinguish symptomatic controls from early-stage endometriosis when applied to the remaining dataset (AUCs ≥0.85 for stage I to III endometriosis). Model 1 also demonstrated strong predictive performance with an AUC of 0.993 (95% CI 0.988-0.998), while Model 2 achieved an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.676-0.783). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study participants were mostly of European ethnicity and the results may be biased from undiagnosed endometriosis in controls. Further analysis is required to enable the generalizability of the findings to other populations and settings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsIn combination, these plasma protein biomarkers and resulting diagnostic models represent a potential new tool for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Subject recruitment at The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, was supported in part by funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grants GNT1105321 and GNT1026033 and Australian Medical Research Future Fund grant no. MRF1199715 (P.A.W.R., S.H.-C., and M.H.). Proteomics International has filed patent WO 2021/184060 A1 that relates to endometriosis biomarkers described in this manuscript; S.B., R.L., and T.C. declare an interest in this patent. J.I., S.B., C.L., D.I., H.L., K.P., M.D., M.M., M.R., P.T., R.L., and T.C. are shareholders in Proteomics International. Otherwise, the authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBlood ProteinsEndometriosisModels, StatisticalAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProteomicsYoung AdultBiomarkersBlood Proteinsdiagnosisendometriosisplasma protein biomarkersproteomicsstatistical models

Identifiers

PMID39719050
PMCPMC11788222

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.