ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Antiganglioside antibody frequency in routine clinical care settings.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening of signaling pathways and hub genes in Guillain-Barré syndrome based on bioinformatics and machine learning.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Clinical spectrum and prognostic features of patients seropositive for anti-GD1a antibody.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Protein Recognition of Glycosphingolipids in Membranes: Mechanistic and Quantitative Insights.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Anti-sulfatide antibodies in neurological disorders: should we test?Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Antiganglioside antibody frequency in routine clinical care settings.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeAntiganglioside antibodies (AGAs) might be involved in the etiopathogenesis of many neurological diseases, such as Miller-Fisher syndrome (MFS) and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Available comprehensive reference data regarding AGA positivity rates and cross-responsiveness among AGAs (where one line immunoblot is positive for ≥1 AGA) during routine clinical care are scant.
methodsIn this 10-year monocentric retrospective study, 3560 immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgM line blots (GA Generic Assays' Anti-Ganglioside Dot kit) obtained using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum samples from 1342 patients were analyzed for AGA positivity in terms of 14 diagnosis categories and AGA cross-responsiveness.
resultsOf all 3560 line blots 158 (4.4%) and of all CSF samples 0.4% (4/924) CSF line blots were AGA positive. For serum IgG, blots with positivity rates higher than the standard deviation of 15.6% were associated with MFS (GD3, GD1a, GT1a and GQ1b) and acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) (GM1, GD1a and GT1a). For serum IgM, blots with positivity rates higher than the standard deviation of 8.1% were associated with AMAN (GM2, GT1a and GQ1b), MFS (GM1, GT1a and GQ1b), multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) (GM1, GM2 and GQ1b) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) (GM1). Cross-responsiveness was observed in 39.6% of all positive serum AGA.
conclusionsTesting for AGAs during routine clinical care rarely led to positive findings, both in serum and even less in CSF, except for the diagnoses AMAN, MFS, MMN and CIDP. Nonspecific findings found as cross-responsiveness between different AGA samples occur frequently, impacting the positivity of most AGA subtypes.
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.