Redefining serological diagnostics with immunoaffinity proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serological diagnostics is generally defined as the detection of specific human immunoglobulins developed against viral, bacterial, or parasitic diseases. Serological tests facilitate the detection of past infections, evaluate immune status, and provide prognostic information. Serological assays were traditionally implemented as indirect immunoassays, and their design has not changed for decades. The advantages of straightforward setup and manufacturing, analytical sensitivity and specificity, affordability, and high-throughput measurements were accompanied by limitations such as semi-quantitative measurements, lack of universal reference standards, potential cross-reactivity, and challenges with multiplexing the complete panel of human immunoglobulin isotypes and subclasses. Redesign of conventional serological tests to include multiplex quantification of immunoglobulin isotypes and subclasses, utilize universal reference standards, and minimize cross-reactivity and non-specific binding will facilitate the development of assays with higher diagnostic specificity. Improved serological assays with higher diagnostic specificity will enable screenings of asymptomatic populations and may provide earlier detection of infectious diseases, autoimmune disorders, and cancer. In this review, we present the major clinical needs for serological diagnostics, overview conventional immunoassay detection techniques, present the emerging immunoassay detection technologies, and discuss in detail the advantages and limitations of mass spectrometry and immunoaffinity proteomics for serological diagnostics. Finally, we explore the design of novel immunoaffinity-proteomic assays to evaluate cell-mediated immunity and advance the sequencing of clinically relevant immunoglobulins.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".