ArticleProteomics2025
Clinical Proteomics, Quo Vadis?
Article in Proteomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Narratives and tensions in the ethics of human proteomics literature: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Thyroid dysfunction and cardiovascular disease.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Multi Omics Integration in Colorectal Cancer: From Molecular Insights to Precision Oncology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Targeting the Biology of Aging in Cerebrovascular Disease: Inflammation, Metabolism, Senescence, and Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Omics Sciences in Dentistry: A Narrative Review on Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications for Prevalent Oral Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of clinical proteomics has seen enormous growth in the past 20 years, with over 40,000 scientific manuscripts published to date. At the same time, actual clinical application of the reported findings is obviously scarce. In this viewpoint article, we discuss the key issues that may be responsible for this apparent lack of success. We conclude that success must not be assessed based on the number of publications, but via the impact on patient management and treatment. We proceed with specific suggestions for potential solutions, which include keeping a strict focus on potential patient benefit. We hope this article can help shape the field, so it can in fact deliver on its realistic promise to bring significant improvement in management and care to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.