ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing neutralizing antibody activity over time between naïve and convalesced COVID-19 vaccinated individuals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Longitudinal data comprised of neutralizing antibody (NAb) activity measurements from subjects who received COVID-19 vaccinations were collected between November 2020 and April 2022. To detect differences between convalesced and naïve groups with respect to the evolution of NAb activity since the subject's first COVID-19 vaccine, we initially fit a linear mixed effects model to only the decay section of NAb evolution. We conclude that NAb activity, when restricted to this region, behaves differently between these two groups, with the convalesced group generally having higher neutralizing antibody levels than the naïve group. We then fit a nonlinear mixed effects model over the entire NAb progression using a system of ordinary differential equations described by De Pillis et al. as our structural component to the model. This analysis not only supports the claim that over the entire progression, NAb activity behaves differently for convalesced and naïve groups, but aligns with the linear analysis in confirming that NAb decay is slower in the convalesced group than the naïve group. Finally, we use the estimated parameters from the nonlinear mixed effects model to predict NAb progression for each subject from their last observed measurement to 100 days past this measurement.
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.