ArticleAntibody therapeutics2021
Using mixed-effects modeling to estimate decay kinetics of response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Article in Antibody therapeutics, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing neutralizing antibody activity over time between naïve and convalesced COVID-19 vaccinated individuals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Vaccination Frequency on COVID-19 Public Health Outcomes: A Model-Based Analysis.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Joint modeling of longitudinal and competing risks for assessing blood oxygen saturation and its association with survival outcomes in COVID-19 patients.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Heterogeneity in Vaccinal Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Can Be Addressed by a Personalized Booster Strategy.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Antibody escape, the risk of serotype formation, and rapid immune waning: Modeling the implications of SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion.PloS one · 2023Article
- Long-term serological SARS-CoV-2 IgG kinetics following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: real-world data from a large cohort of healthcare workers.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The duration of natural immunity in response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a matter of some debate in the literature at present. For example, in a recent publication characterizing SARS-CoV-2 immunity over time, the authors fit pooled longitudinal data, using fitted slopes to infer the duration of SARS-CoV-2 immunity. In fact, such approaches can lead to misleading conclusions as a result of statistical model-fitting artifacts. To exemplify this phenomenon, we reanalyzed one of the markers (pseudovirus neutralizing titer) in the publication, using mixed-effects modeling, a methodology better suited to longitudinal datasets like these. Our findings showed that the half-life was both longer and more variable than reported by the authors. The example selected by us here illustrates the utility of mixed-effects modeling in provide more accurate estimates of the duration and heterogeneity of half-lives of molecular and cellular biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2 immunity.
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.