Extraoral Detection of Biomarkers and Pathogens in Saliva: Comprehensive, Panoramic Review

Biosensors, 2026

Полный текст Открытый доступ: Gold Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/bios16060345
Достоверность данных 85 высокая
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

Human saliva is a heterogeneous bodily fluid with a complex composition, which contains antibodies, proteins, and viruses, making it applicable in clinical diagnosis. There are several advantages of the analysis of saliva samples over other biofluids, including a non-invasive and simple collection procedure for extraoral detection. Biomarker or pathogen detection in saliva can be performed with various methods: mass spectrometry, PCR, ELISA, electrochemical, and optical methods such as fluorescence, SPR, and SERS. The early detection of cancer and other disease biomarkers, as well as infectious agents, can be crucial for effective treatment and minimization of mortality from those diseases. The following paper reviews extraoral detection techniques to identify the most sensitive methods for diagnosing early and asymptomatic patients. The LODs collected and tabulated from 149 analytical papers, alongside the sensitivity, specificity, and sometimes the area under the curve (AUC) tabulated from 118 clinical studies, have all become parameters for the comparative quantitative analysis. Based on the limited but substantial number of analytical studies on the detection of cortisol in saliva (29), the electrochemical platforms demonstrated the highest sensitivity, with a geometric mean LOD of 11 pM. Within these methods, voltametric ones showed the best performance with 6 pM geometric mean LOD. Electrochemical techniques are then followed by immunoassay- and mass spectrometry-based platforms, with corresponding geometric average LOD values of 39.1 and 171 pM, respectively. However, clinical outcomes are at least as meaningful as LOD values. In terms of clinical analysis, ELISA and direct-SERS outperformed other methods, achieving balanced accuracy of approximately 87% and AUC values of 0.96 for direct SERS and 0.86 for ELISA. MS and PCR followed closely, with balanced accuracies around 84%. While the direct SERS is not yet widespread in clinical applications, its potential can be forged if the standardization issue is addressed.