Article in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.
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
20 authors.
Michael MalloryDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0768-572X
Jennifer E MuntDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1169-025X
Tara M NarowskiDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Izabella CastilloDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2815-2807
Edwing CuadraDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Nora PisanicDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0042-9232
John M PowersDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0485-9109
Alexandria DicksonDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2282-9069
Rohan HarrisDepartment Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Richard WargowskyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Genomic Medicine, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1279-4875
Seamus MoranDepartment Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Ahmed AllabbanDepartment Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2473-985X
Kristin RaphelDepartment Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7296-9839
Timothy A McCaffreyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Genomic Medicine, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4648-7833
James D BrienDepartment of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1670-8041
Christopher D HeaneyDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-8495
John E LafleurDepartment Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4404-2723
Ralph S BaricDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6827-8701
Lakshmanane PremkumarDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1736-1350
Funding
Project 3: Serological Interactions with the Mucosal Innate Immune System Regulates COVID-19 Associated Tissue Damage.U54CA260543 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WOLFGANG, MATTHEW C · 2020 to 2024
$9.8M
SARS-CoV-2 correlates of protection in a Latino-origin populationU01CA260541 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO MED SCIENCES · PI BRIEN, JAMES D, LOPEZ, MARCOS · 2020 to 2024
$3.4M
Supplement to U01CA260469U01CA260469 · NCI · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI LUCAS, TODD WILLIAM · 2020 to 2024
The recommended COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake is low. At-home lateral flow assay (LFA) antigen tests are widely accepted for detecting infection during the pandemic. Here, we present the feasibility and potential benefits of using LFA-based antibody tests as a means for individuals to detect inadequate immunity and make informed decisions about COVID-19 booster immunization. In a health care provider cohort, we investigated the changes in the breadth and depth of humoral and T cell immune responses following mRNA vaccination and boosting in LFA-positive and LFA-negative antibody groups. We show that negative LFA antibody tests closely reflect the lack of functional humoral immunity observed in a battery of sophisticated immune assays, while positive results do not necessarily reflect adequate immunity. After booster vaccination, both groups gain depth and breadth of systemic antibodies against evolving SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. Our findings show that LFA-based antibody tests can alert individuals about inadequate immunity against COVID-19, thereby increasing booster shots and promoting herd immunity.
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 Socratic graph.
COVID-19 point-of-care tests can identify low-antibody individuals: In-depth immunoanalysis of boosting benefits in a healthy cohort. · full record | Socratic