Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40103042›Full record

ArticlePhysical review. E2025

Uncertainty quantification of antibody measurements: Physical principles and implications for standardization.

Paul N Patrone, Lili Wang, Sheng Lin-Gibson, Anthony J Kearsley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Paul N PatroneNational Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
Lili WangNational Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
Sheng Lin-GibsonNational Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.
Anthony J KearsleyNational Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA.

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

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

Antibodies, ViralCOVID-19 Serological TestingCOVID-19HumansReference StandardsSARS-CoV-2ThermodynamicsUncertaintyAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID40103042
PMCPMC12434682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.