OpenSampling
The evidence platform for laboratory measurement — what to measure, how to collect it, where it can be measured, when, and how it relates to continuous signals.
What OpenSampling is
The Library
Every microsampling and monitoring paper, read to our standard: a paraphrased finding, labels in a closed vocabulary, devices, analytes and institutions matched to the registers. Open to everyone.
Browse the Library →Cited answers
A question, an answer, every number cited to a claim with its page and table. A deterministic verifier outranks the model: a citation next to a wrong number kills the whole answer, never just the footnote.
Who can ask →Refusal by design
When the evidence is not there, OpenSampling says so and names the nearest evidence it does hold. Disagreements between sources are shown two-sided, never averaged away.
How answers are built →From the Library
1823 papers, newest first. Findings are paraphrased to our standard; the source is always one link away.
2026
Clinical Validation of Venetoclax Volumetric Microsampling in Leukemia, with Whole-Blood-to-Plasma Conversion and Self-Microsampling Feasibility
In AML and CLL, 91% of VAMS venetoclax results fell within 20% of plasma after individualised haematocrit correction; in home sampling, 18 of 21 patients self-sampled independently and 76% of returned samples were analysable, which shows home microsampling is workable, though the authors ask for multicentre validation.
Levens et al., Clinical Pharmacokinetics (paywalled) · source ↗
2026
To Convert or Not to Convert? Official IATDMCT Guideline on Converting Capillary-Blood Microsampling Concentrations to Plasma Concentrations
Guidance on capillary-to-plasma conversion: method- and analyte-specific clinical validation with paired capillary–venous samples before reporting plasma-equivalent results.
Boffel et al., Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (paywalled) · source ↗
2026
Comparison of self-collected oral swabs for supragingival microbiome characterization using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing
Participants preferred the Omnigene and Zymo oral swabs for comfort and ease of use, whilst the Omnigene device yielded the highest median bacterial DNA concentration compared to the other devices. The results indicate that the choice of self-collection device impacts both patient acceptability and DNA yield for oral microbiome analysis.
Rooney et al., Journal of microbiological methods (paywalled) · source ↗
2026
Long-term stability at -80°C of oral wash and saliva samples for microbiome analyses
Saliva samples collected using the OMNIgene ORAL device and oral wash samples remain stable for microbiome diversity and relative abundance analyses for up to five years when stored at -80°C. This supports the use of these self-collection methods for long-term prospective biobanking and decentralised clinical studies.
Slack et al., Microbiology spectrum (paywalled) · source ↗
2026
Detection of <i>Cryptosporidium hominis</i> by clinical metagenomics in stool samples from an outbreak of diarrhoea among British military personnel in Kenya
A study limited by sample size found OMNIgene GUT tubes preserved Cryptosporidium DNA better than DNA Shield and FTA cards after year-long ambient storage. qPCR detected DNA in 23/24 OMNIgene, 21/24 DNA Shield, and 17/20 FTA samples, while metagenomics detected it in 13/24, 9/24, and 0/24 samples respectively, guiding decentralised sampling choices.
Halford et al., BMJ military health (paywalled) · source ↗
2026
Diagnostic Performance of HPV Testing Using Self-Collected Urine and Vaginal Samples for Detecting Cervical Precancer or Worse: A Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis found that HPV testing using self-collected vaginal and urine samples showed sensitivities of 88.6% and 81% for detecting cervical precancer. Using a standardised device for first-void urine increased sensitivity to 86.6%, supporting decentralised patient-centric screening, though data on specificity and specific commercial devices were not consistently reported.
Hsiao et al., The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (paywalled) · source ↗
What “open” means here
Open means open evidence access and transparent provenance — every number cited to its source, every contradiction shown two-sided, every refusal explained. Not open data, not open source, never unrestricted access to proprietary evidence.
- Verified professionals ask
- Laboratory staff by accreditation number, practitioners by registry, researchers by affiliation. The same registers the evidence is checked against.
- Verified numbers
- Every numeric token in an answer resolves to a cited claim's own fields. The check is deterministic and it runs before anything renders.
- A published benchmark
- A benchmark derived from the corpus — citation precision, refusal correctness — measured nightly and published with the answers it gates.
Built for the people who measure
Practices and clinics
Which device and matrix for these analytes; is a capillary result comparable; is this change real. Included with Pulse.
Laboratories
Evidence-readiness per assay — capillary validated, not merely capable — and a claimed capability profile that programmes can route to.
Device makers and IVD manufacturers
Reproducible search protocols, a living state of the art per device, surveillance of retractions and contradictions, private evidence.
Sponsors, CROs and researchers
Protocol feasibility by analyte, country and cadence; bridging-evidence dossiers; accredited laboratories per jurisdiction.