ArticleTransfusion2026
Comparison of four different in vitro assays for prediction of potential RBC antibody clinical significance.
Article in Transfusion, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) uses monocytes, but it is known that antibody-mediated hemolysis occurs in macrophages. Whether the use of macrophages would improve the predictive capacity of the MMA is unclear. Also, it is unclear if RBC alloantibodies contribute to hemolysis via antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). We have compared the MMA to an assay that utilizes monocytes cultured to two different macrophages, called the monocyte-macrophage assay (MOMA), and to ADCC using a STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsMMA was performed using peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to adhere monocytes to chamber slides. MOMA was done using purified peripheral blood monocytes cultured in the presence of GM-CSF (M1 macrophages) or M-CSF (M2 macrophages) and then polarized using IL-4 (M2) or LPS and IFNγ (M1). NK cells were purified and incubated with alloantibody-opsonized RBCs loaded with 51-chromium. We examined 38 antibodies of different specificities, including anti-D, -E, -K, -Jk
resultsMost weakly reactive antibodies were negative in MMA but positive in MOMA and ADCC. M2 was generally more positive than M1. All anti-D, -K, -E gave strong IATs and showed reactivity in all four assays. Anti-P (2+ IAT) was positive in the MMA and MOMA but negative in ADCC. Twelve anti-Yt DISCUSSION: We show that both MOMA and ADCC are more sensitive than MMA for indicating potential for antibody clinical significance. However, validation with antibodies having clinical data as to their actual significance is necessary.
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.