ReviewJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2026
Beyond Positivity: Understanding and Interpreting MOG-IgG Testing in MOGAD.
Review in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnosis of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD) relies heavily on detecting serum MOG-IgG by cell-based assay, but seropositivity alone does not establish the disease. In selected clinical cohorts, the positive predictive value of MOG-IgG ranges from approximately 50%-70% at low titers, depending on the assay and cohort, to near 100% at high titers, and inter-laboratory agreement is markedly lower in the low-positive samples than for clearly positive or negative samples. The difficulty in interpreting low-positive MOG-IgG results largely reflects the interplay of two elements: biological factors (including antigen-related background reactivity and potential cross-reactive immunoreactivity) and methodological variability between assays (including differences in antigen presentation, live versus fixed assay platforms, secondary antibody selection, fluorescence readout, sample timing, and locally validated cutoffs). This ambiguity is unlikely to be resolved by assay optimization alone. The 2023 International MOGAD Panel criteria address these issues by requiring stronger clinical and radiological support when the serological evidence is weaker. Accordingly, MOG-IgG should be interpreted as probabilistic evidence within the clinical and MRI context, rather than as a stand-alone diagnostic marker.
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.