ArticleScientific reports2026
Harmonization of IgG antibody values against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid development of vaccines and diagnostic tests. To evaluate the response of IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein in healthcare workers, a cohort study (2020-2022) was conducted in three Portuguese hospitals. Each hospital used a different assay (Abbott CMIA, Roche Elecsys ECLIA, Siemens ADVIA Centaur), which presents challenges to comparability. This study aimed to harmonize anti-S IgG levels across hospitals using a mathematical approach for combined analysis, and to estimate anti-S IgG levels over time, thus better understanding immunity dynamics. Antibody levels were measured at six time points: before vaccination, after full vaccination, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second dose, and after booster. Various harmonization strategies were tested, including WHO international conversion and quantile interpolation, followed by Deming regression. Quantile interpolation plus regression proved to be more effective than WHO conversion, preserving each hospital's data distribution and aligning the harmonized values with the Abbott CMIA used as the reference scale. After harmonization, antibody titers followed the expected trend: a sharp rise post-vaccination, a gradual decline over 12 months (659.32 BAU/mL before booster), and a notable increase after the booster (25,919.89 BAU/mL). Although cross-laboratory validation was lacking, this approach proved practical, reproducible, and promising for multicenter studies that integrate serological data from diverse platforms, at the European and global levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.