ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2026
Whose Line Is it Anyway? Defining Seropositivity Cutoffs for Infectious Disease Surveillance.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
- Reconstruction of historical malaria transmission in Senegal using multiplex serocatalytic models.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSerological assays are key tools in infectious disease surveillance, enabling detection of past infections by measuring antibody responses. Determining appropriate seropositivity cutoffs, thresholds distinguishing between positive and negative antibody responses, remains a critical methodological challenge.
methodsWe present a framework for selecting seropositivity cutoffs based on immunoassay characteristics, availability of validation samples, and intended use case. Four principal methods are evaluated: receiver operating characteristic curves based on confirmed positive and negative samples; the negative sample distribution method when only negative controls are available; the positive sample distribution method for scenarios with only positive controls; and mixture models for samples of unknown serostatus. Each method's assumptions, advantages, and limitations are detailed, and guidance is provided for selecting the most appropriate approach under varying constraints.
resultsThe framework is first illustrated using simulated data, and then applied to data from multiplex serological surveys of neglected tropical diseases in the Senegalese villages of Dielmo and Ndiop. We demonstrate that no universal approach suffices across pathogens or populations. Cross-reactive antibody responses, variations in total IgG levels between populations, and assay-specific features can all confound interpretation.
conclusionsWe advocate for a context-dependent, evidence-based selection of cutoff methodologies, informed by panels of confirmed positive and negative samples. As multiplex serological platforms become increasingly central to integrated disease surveillance, robust frameworks for interpreting antibody data are needed. Our proposed framework offers a pragmatic path forward, bridging immunological theory and statistical rigor to improve the reliability and comparability of seroepidemiological insights across diverse epidemiological settings.
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.