Search

COVID-19 has highlighted challenges in the measurement quality and comparability of serological binding and neutralization assays. Due to many different assay formats and reagents, these measurements are known to be highly variable with large uncertainties. The development of the WHO international standard (WHO IS) and other pool standards have facilitated assay comparability through normalization to a common material but does not provide assay harmonization nor uncertainty quantification. In this paper, we present the results from an interlaboratory study that led to the development of (1) a novel hierarchy of data analyses based on the thermodynamics of antibody binding and (2) a modeling framework that quantifies the probability of neutralization potential for a given binding measurement. Importantly, we introduced a precise, mathematical definition of harmonization that separates the sources of quantitative uncertainties, some of which can be corrected to enable, for the first time, assay comparability. Both the theory and experimental data confirmed that mAbs and WHO IS performed identically as a primary standard for establishing traceability and bridging across different assay platforms. The metrological anchoring of complex serological binding and neuralization assays and fast turn-around production of an mAb reference control can enable the unprecedented comparability and traceability of serological binding assay results for new variants of SARS-CoV-2 and immune responses to other viruses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has emphasized the importance and challenges of correctly interpreting antibody test results. Identification of positive and negative samples requires a classification strategy with low error rates, which is hard to achieve when the corresponding measurement values overlap. Additional uncertainty arises when classification schemes fail to account for complicated structure in data. We address these problems through a mathematical framework that combines high dimensional data modeling and optimal decision theory. Specifically, we show that appropriately increasing the dimension of data better separates positive and negative populations and reveals nuanced structure that can be described in terms of mathematical models. We combine these models with optimal decision theory to yield a classification scheme that better separates positive and negative samples relative to traditional methods such as confidence intervals (CIs) and receiver operating characteristics. We validate the usefulness of this approach in the context of a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G assay dataset. This example illustrates how our analysis: (i) improves the assay accuracy, (e.g. lowers classification errors by up to 42% compared to CI methods); (ii) reduces the number of indeterminate samples when an inconclusive class is permissible, (e.g. by 40% compared to the original analysis of the example multiplex dataset) and (iii) decreases the number of antigens needed to classify samples. Our work showcases the power of mathematical modeling in diagnostic classification and highlights a method that can be adopted broadly in public health and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serology testing can identify past infection by quantifying the immune response of an infected individual providing important public health guidance. Individual immune responses are time-dependent, which is reflected in antibody measurements. Moreover, the probability of obtaining a particular measurement from a random sample changes due to changing prevalence (i.e., seroprevalence, or fraction of individuals exhibiting an immune response) of the disease in the population. Taking into account these personal and population-level effects, we develop a mathematical model that suggests a natural adaptive scheme for estimating prevalence as a function of time. We then combine the estimated prevalence with optimal decision theory to develop a time-dependent probabilistic classification scheme that minimizes the error associated with classifying a value as positive (history of infection) or negative (no such history) on a given day since the start of the pandemic. We validate this analysis by using a combination of real-world and synthetic SARS-CoV-2 data and discuss the type of longitudinal studies needed to execute this scheme in real-world settings. • Personal antibody levels and global disease prevalence depend on time. • Time dependence as a convolution of dual timeline effects. • Estimate prevalence using the unbiased estimator, then classify. • Optimal classification domains change with time. • Can be applied in a low prevalence setting and for different assays, infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]