Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39901660›Full record

ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025

Real-world clinical experience with serum MOG and AQP4 antibody testing by live versus fixed cell-based assay.

Yana Said, Angeliki Filippatou, Conlan Tran, LuAnn Rezavi, Kai Guo, Matthew D Smith, Yasmin Resto, John J Chen, Peter A Calabresi, Patrizio Caturegli and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Beyond Positivity: Understanding and Interpreting MOG-IgG Testing in MOGAD.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Yana SaidDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-4350-1910
Angeliki FilippatouDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0419-233X
Conlan TranDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
LuAnn RezaviDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kai GuoDepartments of Neurology, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Matthew D SmithDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Yasmin RestoDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
John J ChenDepartments of Ophthalmology and Neurology, Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Peter A CalabresiDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7776-6472
Patrizio CaturegliDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sean J PittockDepartments of Neurology, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6140-5584
Eoin P FlanaganDepartments of Neurology, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, and Center for MS and Autoimmune Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Elias S SotirchosDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8812-1637

Funding

Utilizing epidemiology, imaging and fluid biomarkers in MOG antibody-associated disease to inform prognosis, pathogenesis and therapeuticsR01NS113828 · NINDS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Eoin P Flanagan · 2020 to 2026
$2.4M
Prediction of risk of disability worsening and inflammatory disease activity in MS utilizing multimodal prediction algorithmsK23NS117883 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SOTIRCHOS, ELIAS S · 2020 to 2024
$918k
Caring Friends for NMO Research FundMayo Clinic Center for MS and Autoimmune NeurologyNIH HHS K23NS117883NIH HHS R01NS113828NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS117883NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS113828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the real-world performance of a live (LCBA) versus a fixed (FCBA) cell-based assay for the detection of serum antibodies directed against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG-IgG) and aquaporin-4 (AQP4-IgG).

methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients evaluated at a single tertiary academic referral center, with serum testing performed clinically for AQP4-IgG and/or MOG-IgG by FCBA and LCBA on the same day. Additionally, frozen banked sera from the same day for patients tested only by one assay were retrieved and tested by the other assay. FCBA was performed by the Johns Hopkins Immunology Laboratory using Euroimmun kits with detection by indirect immunofluorescence (FCBA-IF), whereas LCBA was performed by the Mayo Clinic Neuroimmunology Laboratory with detection by flow cytometry (LCBA-FACS).

resultsOf 594 specimens with paired MOG-IgG testing, 500 were negative by both assays, 33 were positive by both assays, 56 were positive exclusively by LCBA-FACS, and 5 were only positive by FCBA-IF. Overall, MOG-IgG LCBA-FACS exhibited 95.1% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity, whereas MOG-IgG FCBA-IF had 45.7% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Of 577 specimens with paired AQP4-IgG testing, 503 were negative by both assays, 51 were positive by both assays, 21 were positive exclusively by LCBA-FACS, and 2 were only positive by FCBA-IF. Overall, AQP4-IgG LCBA-FACS exhibited 97.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas AQP4-IgG FCBA-IF had 71.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity.

interpretationLCBA-FACS for both MOG-IgG and AQP4-IgG had markedly better sensitivity than FCBA-IF, with similar specificity. The use of FCBA-IF may result in underrecognition of both MOG antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) and AQP4-IgG seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD).

Indexed as

Aquaporin 4AutoantibodiesMyelin-Oligodendrocyte GlycoproteinAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFlow CytometryFluorescent Antibody Technique, IndirectHumansImmunoglobulin GMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAQP4 protein, humanAquaporin 4AutoantibodiesImmunoglobulin GMOG protein, humanMyelin-Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein

Identifiers

PMID39901660
PMCPMC11920744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.