A New SARS-CoV-2 Dual-Purpose Serology Test: Highly Accurate Infection Tracing and Neutralizing Antibody Response Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology tests have proven to be less accurate than expected and do not assess antibody function as neutralizing, correlating with protection from reinfection. A new assay technology measuring the interaction of the purified SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) with the extracellular domain of the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) receptor detects these important antibodies. The cPass surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), compared directly with eight SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology and two live-cell neutralization tests, gives similar or improved accuracy for qualitative delineation between positive and negative individuals in a fast, scalable, and high-throughput assay. The combined data support the cPass sVNT as a tool for highly accurate SARS-CoV-2 immunity surveillance of infected/recovered and/or vaccinated individuals as well as drug and convalescent-phase donor screening. The data also preview a novel application for the cPass sVNT in calibrating the stringency of live-cell neutralization tests and its use in longitudinal testing of recovered and/or vaccinated patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".