Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42683791›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2026

Beyond Positivity: Understanding and Interpreting MOG-IgG Testing in MOGAD.

Jieun Chung, Su-Hyun Kim, Fabienne Brilot, Ho Jin Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Jieun ChungDepartment of Neurology, Research Institute and Hospital of National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3267-2085
Su-Hyun KimDepartment of Neurology, Research Institute and Hospital of National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0679-0918
Fabienne BrilotBrain Autoimmunity Group, Kids Neuroscience Centre, Kids Research at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7025-2276
Ho Jin KimDepartment of Neurology, Research Institute and Hospital of National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. hojinkim@ncc.re.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8672-8419

Funding

National Cancer Center of KoreaNational Health and Medical Research Council GNT2016841National Research Foundation of Korea
6 · The paper itself

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

cell-based assaydiagnostic criterialow-positive resultsMOGADMOG-IgGmyelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein

Identifiers

PMID42683791
PMCPMC13553175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.