Cross-Platform Comparison of Highly Sensitive Immunoassays for Inflammatory Markers in a COVID-19 Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of commercial platforms are available for the simultaneous detection of multiple cytokines and associated proteins, often employing Ab pairs to capture and detect target proteins. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the performance of three distinct platforms: the fluorescent bead-based Luminex assay, the proximity extension-based Olink assay, and a novel proximity ligation assay platform known as Alamar NULISAseq. These assessments were conducted on human serum samples from the National Institutes of Health IMPACC study, with a focus on three essential performance metrics: detectability, correlation, and differential expression. Our results reveal several key findings. First, the Alamar platform demonstrated the highest overall detectability, followed by Olink and then Luminex. Second, the correlation of protein measurements between the Alamar and Olink platforms tended to be stronger than the correlation of either of these platforms with Luminex. Third, we observed that detectability differences across the platforms often translated to differences in differential expression findings, although high detectability did not guarantee the ability to identify meaningful biological differences. Our study provides valuable insights into the comparative performance of these assays, enhancing our understanding of their strengths and limitations when assessing complex biological samples, as exemplified by the sera from this COVID-19 cohort.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".