ArticleHeliyon2024
Validation of a focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) to rapidly titrate human SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies by using the CTL Immunospot S6 universal analyzer.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associated uncertainty estimation during the validation process of TCIDFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper we describe the validation of a focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) to quantitate human SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies by using the CTL Immunospot S6 Universal Analyzer. We employed a previously published protocol and compared its performances to a well-established and traditional serum-neutralization assay (SN). To assess diagnostic sensitivity, a total number of 201 human sera positive by SN for SARS-CoV-2 NAbs were processed: 196/201 tested positive by FRNT50 (97.51 %). A diagnostic specificity of 100 % was obtained by evaluating 206 negative serum samples. Repeatability of the test was evaluated by determining the intra and inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV). A standard deviation of 0.83 and a CV of 13 % were evidenced demonstrating an acceptable reproducibility of the assay. Moreover, a Cohen's Kappa of 0.975 was obtained proving an extremely high level of agreement between the FRNT protocol and the SN. Despite an acceptable correlation between methods (p < 0.05), FRNT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in NAbs titres compared to SN as well as higher data variability and asymmetry. These discrepancies could be attributed to FRNT sensitivity or most probably to the subjective interpretation of SN, although this aspect needs to be further investigated with a more representative number of samples. Basing on our results, it is reasonable to replace the SN with the FRNT assay as, with this, fast processing time (less than 2 days) and operator bias-free results registrations are guaranteed.
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.