ArticleInternational archives of allergy and immunology2026
Impact of Processing Delays and Cryopreservation on Sensitivity and Specificity of the Lymphocyte Transformation Test.
Article in International archives of allergy and immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from patients with presumed drug allergy are cultured with the implicated drug. No study has systematically investigated how delayed processing or cryopreservation of PBMCs affects the sensitivity and specificity of the LTT to detect a drug sensitization. We evaluated the impact of delayed processing or cryopreservation of PBMCs on the sensitivity and specificity of the LTT focusing on interferon-y (IFN-γ) secretion as read-out. Additionally, we investigated the impact of the respective processing methods on non-stimulated reference and TT-stimulated PBMCs.
methodsBlood from 30 patients and 30 gender-matched controls was split for paired processing: one aliquot was processed immediately as internal reference of the patient/control, the other subjected to either a 24-h delay (n = 15) or immediate processing followed by cryopreservation of the PBMCs (n = 15). Thereby, each patient and control in the respective cohort served as its own reference for the assessment of the methodical processing impact. IFN-γ concentrations in PBMC culture supernatants were measured by ELISA.
resultsCryopreservation of PBMCs resulted in a statistically non-significant trend toward higher sensitivity (45% vs. 32%) and specificity (81% vs. 79%), for detecting drug sensitization compared to delayed processing. Overall, 80% of the LTT results using cryopreserved PBMCs were consistent with those obtained from the immediately processed reference group.
conclusionDue to the lack of statistical significance, no clear recommendation for one of the two processing methods can be made.
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.