Back

Beyond the Needle: Touch Activated Phlebotomy for Autism-Friendly Blood Sampling

Cameron, A.; Rossetti, G.; Tavassoli, T.; Field, D.

2026-04-30 nutrition
10.64898/2026.04.22.26351115 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeBlood draws have been associated with significant discomfort, especially for individuals with sensory hypersensitivity, as is common in autism. This results in avoidance of medical appointments and creates difficulties for scientific studies recruiting from this population. Touch Activated Phlebotomy (TAP) is a novel capillary blood collection technique that reduces the discomfort of blood draws, and here we aimed to assess its tolerability to autistic adults. Our secondary aim was to assess whether capillary and venous blood provide equivalent measurements of Vitamin B6 concentrations. Methods23 participants (11 autistic: 12 non-autistic) were recruited, and two TAP devices were administered before providing pain ratings. Traditional venipuncture was also carried out in the non-autistic individuals, with the same pain measures reported. Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs) were conducted to quantify concentrations of Vitamin B6. ResultsThe TAP device caused significantly less pain than the traditional venipuncture procedure. Furthermore, TAP pain ratings in autistic individuals did not differ meaningfully from non-autistic individuals. Vitamin B6 concentrations showed minimal bias and good agreement between capillary and venous blood, and high repeatability between repeated capillary samples. No clear difference in Vitamin B6 concentrations was observed between autistic and non-autistic participants. ConclusionTAP is a well-tolerated method of obtaining capillary blood samples from autistic adults for medical and research purposes, and this has the potential to reduce avoidance of medical appointments in this population. Like most analytes tested to date, measurement of Vitamin B6 in capillary blood is a valid and reliable alternative to traditional venous samples.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.1%
2
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.7%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 11%
7.4%
4
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.7%
7
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
9
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
10
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Neurogastroenterology & Motility
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
22
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
24
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
25
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
26
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%