ReviewSN comprehensive clinical medicine2020
A Minimalist Strategy Towards Temporarily Defining Protection for COVID-19.
Review in SN comprehensive clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 among infants: key clinical features and remaining controversies.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2024Article
- Passive Immunity Should and Will Work for COVID-19 for Some Patients.Clinical hematology international · 2021Review
- In pursuit of the right tail for the COVID-19 incubation period.Public health · 2021Review
- Untangling the Intricacies of Infection, Thrombosis, Vaccination, and Antiphospholipid Antibodies for COVID-19.SN comprehensive clinical medicine · 2021Review
- A Comprehensive Analysis of Maternal and Newborn Disease and Related Control for COVID-19.SN comprehensive clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Applying Immune Instincts and Maternal Intelligence from Comparative Microbiology to COVID-19.SN comprehensive clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Until either efficacious therapy or vaccination for COVID-19 is achieved, there will be a need to regain world economic stability while yet controlling the pandemic with current approaches. For those infected thus far, there is a prevailing perspective that devising recognition for protective immunity will progressively allow segments of society to return to some functionality more than is existing. At this time, the best correlates with protection from natural coronavirus infections are systemic neutralizing antibody and mucosal IgA. Serum neutralizing antibody more easily fulfills the latter requisite, but current live virus methods for neutralization prevent large-scale application. It is conceivable that the exposure of previously infected individuals can allow for the definition of protective thresholds of neutralizing antibody. Thereafter, many other antibody assays will be able to screen for surrogate protection after correlations with protective neutralizing antibody are made. Specificity of common antibody tests would benefit from confirmatory blocking systems or confirmatory immunoblotting fingerprints with well-defined antigen(s). The opportunity for the scientific community to make these assessments is evident in the current context of the COVID-19 epidemic given the large numbers of infected individuals worldwide. Such information will also be vital to guide vaccine development and/or immunotherapy.
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.