↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for Systematic Statistical Computation of Immunogenicity Cut Points

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Recommendations for Systematic Statistical Computation of Immunogenicity Cut Points
Published in
The AAPS Journal, July 2017
DOI 10.1208/s12248-017-0107-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viswanath Devanarayan, Wendell C. Smith, Rocco L. Brunelle, Mary E. Seger, Kim Krug, Ronald R. Bowsher

Abstract

Today, the assessment of immunogenicity is integral in nonclinical and clinical testing of new biotherapeutics and biosimilars. A key component in the risk-based evaluation of immunogenicity involves the detection and characterization of anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Over the past couple of decades, much progress has been made in standardizing the generalized approach for ADA testing with a three-tiered testing paradigm involving screening, confirmation, and quasi-quantitative titer assessment representing the typical harmonized scheme. Depending on a biotherapeutic's structural attributes, more characterization and testing may be appropriate. Unlike bioanalytical assays used to support the evaluation of pharmacokinetics or toxicokinetics, an important component in immunogenicity testing is the calculation of cut points for the identification (screening), confirmation (specificity), and titer assessment responses in animals and humans. Several key publications have laid an excellent foundation for statistical design and data analysis to determine immunogenicity cut points. Yet, the process for statistical determination of cut points remains a topic of active discussion by investigators who conduct immunogenicity assessments to support biotherapeutic drug development. In recent years, we have refined our statistical approach to address the challenges that have arisen due to the evolution in biotherapeutics and the analytical technologies used for quasi-quantitative detection. Based on this collective experience, we offer a simplified statistical analysis process and flow-scheme for cut point evaluations that should work in a large majority of projects to provide reliable estimates for the screening, confirmatory, and titering cut points.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 25%
Other 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,414,046
of 23,371,053 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#73
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,212
of 315,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,371,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.