ArticleJournal of neuroimmunology2025
N-type voltage-gated calcium channel antibody testing lacks diagnostic value in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome.
Article in Journal of neuroimmunology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsDiagnostic evaluation for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) includes serological testing for voltage-gated calcium channel antibodies (VGCC-P/Q-type [VGCC-PQ] and VGCC-N-type [VGCC-N]). While VGCC-PQ antibodies are well-established biomarkers in LEMS, the clinical utility of VGCC-N antibody testing remains obscure. We aimed to determine the diagnostic value of VGCC-N antibody testing.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was performed. The Mayo Clinic electronic medical record from 1995 to 2021 was reviewed for inclusion of patients fitting clinical electrodiagnostic criteria for LEMS, who were evaluated for serum VGCC antibodies (n = 123). Available sera were additionally tested for SOX1 antibodies (n = 68). Healthy adults were tested for VGCC-PQ and VGCC-N antibodies (n = 122). Clinical performance of each antibody test was evaluated statistically.
resultsAmong adult LEMS cases, 84.6 % (n = 99/117) tested positive for VGCC-PQ antibody while none of the healthy controls did. In contrast, 20.5 % (n = 24/117) were VGCC-N antibody positive, of which 95.8 % (n = 23/24) co-occurred with VGCC-PQ antibodies. The frequency of isolated VGCC-N antibody positivity was higher in controls than in LEMS (2.5 % [n = 3/122] vs. 0.9 % [n = 1/117]), and pediatric patients had no VGCC-N antibody reactivity. Neither VGCC-N antibody positivity nor titer was predictive of an associated small-cell lung cancer (SCLC-LEMS). By contrast, SOX1-IgG seropositivity associated significantly with SCLC-LEMS. DISCUSSION: Inclusion of VGCC-N antibody testing does not improve diagnostic accuracy for LEMS, nor does it serve as a predictor of LEMS-associated cancers in contrast to SOX1-IgG testing. We recommend the exclusion of VGCC-N antibody testing given its non-specific disease associations and poor positive predictive value in LEMS screening.
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.