Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30386334›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2018

Immune Functional Assays, From Custom to Standardized Tests for Precision Medicine.

Chloé Albert-Vega, Dina M Tawfik, Sophie Trouillet-Assant, Laurence Vachot, François Mallet, Julien Textoris

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cell-Based Immuno-Biosensors Using Microfluidics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Control ofFrontiers in immunology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chloé Albert-VegaJoint Research Unit, Hospice Civils de Lyon, bioMerieux, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Benite, France.
Dina M TawfikMedical Diagnostic Discovery Department, bioMérieux S.A., Grenoble, France.
Sophie Trouillet-AssantJoint Research Unit, Hospice Civils de Lyon, bioMerieux, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Benite, France.
Laurence VachotMedical Diagnostic Discovery Department, bioMérieux S.A., Grenoble, France.
François MalletJoint Research Unit, Hospice Civils de Lyon, bioMerieux, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre-Benite, France.
Julien TextorisEA7426 Pathophysiology of Injury-Induced Immunosuppression, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1-Hospices Civils de Lyon-bioMérieux, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The immune response is a dynamic system that maintains the integrity of the body, and more specifically fight against infections. However, an unbalanced host immune response is highlighted in many diseases. Exacerbated responses lead to autoimmune and allergic diseases, whereas, low or inefficient responses favor opportunistic infections and viral reactivations. Conflicting situations may also occur, such as in sepsis where inflammation and compensatory immunosuppression make it difficult to deploy the appropriate drug treatment. Until the current day, assessing the immune profile of patients remains a challenge. This is especially due to the inter-individual variability-a key feature of the immune system-which hinders precise diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic stratification. Our incapacity to practically interpret the host response may contribute to a high morbidity and mortality, such as the annual 6 million worldwide deaths in sepsis alone. Therefore, there is a high and increasing demand to assess patient immune function in routine clinical practice, currently met by Immune Functional Assays. Immune Functional Assays (IFA) hold a plethora of potentials that include the precise diagnosis of infections, as well as prediction of secondary and latent infections. Current available products are devoted to indirect pathogen detection such as Mycobacteria tuberculosis interferon gamma release assays (IGRA). In addition, identifying the status and the underlying factors of immune dysfunction (e.g., in septic patients) may guide immune targeted therapies. Tools to monitor and stratify the immune status are currently being studied but they still have many limitations such as technical standardization, biomarkers relevance, systematic interpretation and need to be simplified, in order to set the boundaries of "healthy," "ill," and "critically ill" responses. Thus, the design of new tools that give a comprehensive insight into the immune functionality, at the bedside, and in a timely manner represents a leap toward immunoprofiling of patients.

Indexed as

ImmunoassayAnimalsDisease ManagementDisease SusceptibilityHumansPrecision Medicinecritically-ill patientshost responseIGRAimmune functional assayimmune monitoringimmunoprofilingsepsisstimulation

Identifiers

PMID30386334
PMCPMC6198655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.