ArticleJournal of immunological methods2013
Defining ELISpot cut-offs from unreplicated test and control wells.
Article in Journal of immunological methods, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Deciphering cellular complexity: advances and future directions in single-cell protein analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Hepatitis E Infection in a Longitudinal Cohort of Hepatitis C Virus and HCV/HIV Coinfected Persons.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2021Article
- Article
- Association of reduced count of interleukin-13-producing cells in breast milk with atopic dermatitis in infancy.The Indian journal of medical research · 2018Article
- Recent developments in clinical trial designs for HIV vaccine research.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the absence of replication of wells, empirical criteria for enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) positivity use fixed differences or ratios between spot forming units (SFU) counts between test and control. We propose an alternative approach which first identifies the optimally variance-stabilizing transformation of the SFU counts, based on the Bland-Altman plot of the test and control wells. The second step is to derive a positivity threshold from the difference in between-plate distribution functions of the transformed test and control SFU counts. This method is illustrated using 1309 assay results from a cohort study of influenza in Vietnam in which some, but not all, of the peptide pools have clear tendencies for SFU counts to be higher in test than control wells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.