Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42037377›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2026

Assessing VirScan serosurvey epitope profiling variability between in-clinic venous blood draw and capillary blood self-sampling device.

Linda M Sircy, Terry L Stevens-Ayers, Elizabeth M Krantz, Laurel Joncas-Schronce, Nina S O Ozbek, Rachel L Blazevic, Larry Mose, Louise E Kimball, Ryan Basom, Sayan Dasgupta and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Linda M SircyVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3335-9258
Terry L Stevens-AyersVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7546-8439
Elizabeth M KrantzVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Laurel Joncas-SchronceVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Nina S O OzbekVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Rachel L BlazevicVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Larry MoseVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Louise E KimballVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Ryan BasomClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sayan DasguptaVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Antje HeitAmazon, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Frank SchmitzAmazon, Seattle, Washington, USA.
David HeckermanAmazon, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Rachel A Bender IgnacioVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Joshua A HillVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7665-7100
Jim BoonyaratanakornkitVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Michael BoeckhVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1538-7984
Alpana WaghmareVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2268-9470

Funding

AmazonNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases T32AI118690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Timely and ongoing in-clinic sample collections are a common logistical barrier to volunteer participation and retention in longitudinal clinical studies. To remove this barrier, clinical studies have recently begun to implement the use of at-home capillary blood self-sampling devices in place of in-clinic venous blood draws for participant blood sample collection. Thus, we assessed antibody responses to a broad library of over 300 viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens using VirScan immunoassay testing on adult volunteer capillary (serum) and venous (plasma) blood samples collected by Tasso devices and in-clinic venipunctures on the same day to determine whether self-sampling devices are a more practical and convenient alternative for future clinical studies. Most VirScan measurements of antibodies specific for clinically relevant respiratory viruses and herpesviruses had strong concordance between participant-matched Tasso and venipuncture blood samples. While we did not identify a systematic bias in most pathogen-specific antibody measurements associated with blood collection method, we did observe intrinsic VirScan inter-assay variability across some clinically relevant viruses. Together, our data demonstrate that capillary blood self-sampling devices are a practical alternative to in-clinic venipunctures for VirScan clinical research studies. However, these blood collection methods should not be used interchangeably within longitudinal studies to minimize the introduction of technical variables.IMPORTANCEOur study assessed whether capillary blood self-sampling devices could reliably replace in-clinic venous blood collection methods for the VirScan immunoassay, which can detect antibodies specific to hundreds of pathogens. Longitudinal studies requiring multiple in-clinic visits for sample collection often experience low volunteer retention because of the inconvenience of traveling to research sites. Allowing volunteers to use at-home self-sampling devices reduces the burden of travel for participants and increases access to outreach for volunteers who would otherwise not participate in research. Importantly, VirScan only requires a small sample volume, so blood self-sampling devices would be appropriate to use despite their volume collection limitations. Overall, capillary blood self-sampling devices can be a reliable and efficient method for research studies to investigate antibody responses longitudinally using VirScan. However, to limit the introduction of technical variables, collection methods should not be used interchangeably within a longitudinal study.

Indexed as

Blood Specimen CollectionEpitopesAdultAntibodies, ViralFemaleHumansImmunoassayMalePhlebotomySpecimen HandlingVirusesAntibodies, ViralEpitopesantibody profilingblood self-samplingepitope profilingVirScan

Identifiers

PMID42037377
PMCPMC13228006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.