ArticlePhysical review. E2025
Uncertainty quantification of antibody measurements: Physical principles and implications for standardization.
Article in Physical review. E, 2025. 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.
- Monoclonal Antibodies as SARS-CoV-2 Serology Standards: Experimental Validation and Broader Implications for Correlates of Protection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Harmonizing serology measurements (i.e., rendering them interchangeable) is critical for comparing results across different diagnostics platforms, developing associated reference materials, and thereby informing medical decisions. However, the theoretical foundations of such tasks have yet to be fully explored in terms of antibody thermodynamics and uncertainty quantification (UQ). In the context of SARS-CoV-2, for example, this has restricted the usefulness of standards currently deployed, limited the scope of materials considered as viable standards, and ultimately decreased confidence in serology. To address these problems, we develop rigorous theories of antibody normalization and harmonization. We begin by proposing a mathematical definition of harmonization equipped with structure needed to quantify uncertainty associated with the choice of standard, assay, etc. We then show how a thermodynamic description of serology measurements (i) relates this structure to the Gibbs free energy of antibody binding, and thereby (ii) induces a regression analysis that directly harmonizes measurements. We supplement this with an optimization-based normalization (not harmonization!) method that validates consistency between the behavior of a reference material and biological samples. A key result of these analyses is that under physically reasonable conditions, the choice of reference material does not increase uncertainty associated with harmonization. We validate main ideas via an interlab study that considers monoclonal antibodies as a reference for SARS-CoV-2 serology measurements and discuss connections to correlates of protection.
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.