ArticleScientific reports2025
Analytical validation of total mucin concentration assay using SEC MALLS dRI for diagnosing and monitoring mucoobstructive lung diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- A Quantitative Lung Mucin Score to Identify Chronic Bronchitis.NEJM evidence · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mucins play a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of mucoobstructive lung diseases. Accurate quantification of total mucin concentrations in clinical sputum samples is critical for developing objective biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring. By using sputum samples and mucin standards, the analytical performance of the measurements of total mucin concentration by Size Exclusion Chromatography coupled with Multi-Angle Laser Light Scattering and Differential Refractometer [SEC-(MALLS)-dRI] method was assessed using universal validation metrics, including precision, accuracy, recovery, parallelism, specificity, linearity, and sample stability. Possible sample contamination sources, such as saliva, blood, and DNA, were also evaluated. The method demonstrated excellent precision across low, medium, and high concentrations (CV% ≤ 2.6%) and high recovery (116%). It exhibited strong linearity over a broad dynamic range (~30-15,000 µg/mL) and stability for up to 12 months at - 20 °C in naïve samples and 4 °C in 4 M GuHCl. Measurement interference was negligible, up to 20% saliva, 2% blood, and 2% DNA. This study validates the SEC-(MALLS)-dRI method as a robust, reliable approach for quantifying total mucin concentrations in clinical sputum samples. The demonstrated analytical validity establishes its use as a biomarker platform for clinical and research applications, aiding in the diagnosis and management of hypersecretory/mucoobstructive lung diseases.
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.