Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37191544›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2023

Assay Harmonization Study To Measure Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines: a Serology Methods Study.

Troy J Kemp, Heidi A Hempel, Yuanji Pan, Daisy Roy, James Cherry, Douglas R Lowy, Ligia A Pinto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Troy J KempVaccine, Immunity and Cancer Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Heidi A HempelVaccine, Immunity and Cancer Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2830-0593
Yuanji PanVaccine, Immunity and Cancer Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Daisy RoyVaccine, Immunity and Cancer Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.
James CherryResearch Technologies Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Douglas R LowyLaboratory of Cellular Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Ligia A PintoVaccine, Immunity and Cancer Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3130-9882
Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

WORK ORDER 126643 B539 EXPAND IC SUITE75N91019D00024 · NIAID · LEIDOS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, INC. · PI PENDLETON, RICHARD · 2019 to 2025
$3932.6M
NCI NIH HHS 75N91019D00024NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented the scientific community with an immediate need for accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology assays, resulting in an expansion of assay development, some without following a rigorous quality control and validation, and with a wide range of performance characteristics. Vast amounts of data have been gathered on SARS-CoV-2 antibody response; however, performance and ability to compare the results have been challenging. This study seeks to analyze the reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of a set of widely used commercial, in-house, and neutralization serology assays, as well as provide evidence for the feasibility of using the World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) as a harmonization tool. This study also seeks to demonstrate that binding immunoassays may serve as a practical alternative for the serological study of large sample sets in lieu of expensive, complex, and less reproducible neutralization assays. In this study, commercial assays demonstrated the highest specificity, while in-house assays excelled in antibody sensitivity. As expected, neutralization assays demonstrated high levels of variability but overall good correlations with binding immunoassays, suggesting that binding may be reasonably accurate as well as practical for the study of SARS-CoV-2 serology. All three assay types performed well after WHO IS standardization. The results of this study demonstrate there are high performing serology assays available to the scientific community to rigorously dissect antibody responses to infection and vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralHumansImmunityReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralVaccinesantibodiesharmonizationSARS-CoV-2serology

Identifiers

PMID37191544
PMCPMC10269912
OpenAlexW4376641905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.