Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 535

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antibody Detection and Dynamic Characteristics in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

Open access
Xiang, Fei, Wang, Xiaorong, He, Xinliang, Peng, Zhenghong, Yang, Bohan, Zhang, Jianchu, Zhou, Qiong, Ye, Hong, Ma, Yanling, Li, Hui, Wei, Xiaoshan, Cai, Pengcheng, Ma, Wan-Li·2020·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been rapidly spreading nationwide and abroad. A serologic test to identify antibody dynamics and response to SARS-CoV-2 was developed. Methods: The antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay based on the recombinant nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 at 3–40 days after symptom onset. The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis was nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). The serodiagnostic power of the specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was investigated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and consistency rate. Results: The seroconversion of specific IgM and IgG antibodies were observed as early as the fourth day after symptom onset. In the patients with confirmed COVID-19, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and consistency rate of IgM were 77.3% (51/66), 100%, 100%, 80.0%, and 88.1%, respectively, and those of IgG were 83.3% (55/66), 95.0%, 94.8%, 83.8%, and 88.9%. In patients with suspected COVID-19, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and consistency rate of IgM were 87.5% (21/24), 100%, 100%, 95.2%, and 96.4%, respectively, and those of IgG were 70.8% (17/24), 96.6%, 85.0%, 89.1%, and 88.1%. Both antibodies performed well in serodiagnosis for COVID-19 and rely on great specificity. Conclusions: The antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the middle and later stages of the illness. Antibody detection may play an important role in the diagnosis of COVID-19 as a complementary approach to viral nucleic acid assays.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/ciaa461

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 535

Metadata

Authors
Xiang, F., Wang, X., He, X., Peng, Z., Yang, B., Zhang, J., Zhou, Q., Ye, H., Ma, Y., Li, H., Wei, X., Cai, P., & Ma, W.-L.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2020-04-19
Volume
71
Issue
8
Pages
1930-1934
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W3016611530
Cited by
535
References
2
FWCI
15.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antibody Detection and Dynamic Characteristics in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/cid/ciaa461
The paper
Xiang, F., Wang, X., He, X., Peng, Z., Yang, B., Zhang, J., Zhou, Q., Ye, H., Ma, Y., Li, H., Wei, X., Cai, P., & Ma, W.-L. (2020). Antibody Detection and Dynamic Characteristics in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa461

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.