Serology Tests Explained: What They Detect and How to Interpret Results

Serology tests detect antibodies or antigens in blood serum and other body fluids to identify past or current infection, autoimmune conditions, or immune status. These tests measure the humoral immune response instead of detecting the pathogen directly. For laboratory students, technicians, researchers, and diagnostic professionals, understanding what serology tests detect and how to interpret their results requires knowledge of assay principles, test performance characteristics, and clinical context. This article explains the core principles of serological testing, describes common assay formats including ELISA and Western blot, and provides a practical framework for interpreting results using sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.

At a Glance: Serology Test Interpretation Decision Table

The following table summarizes key considerations when interpreting serology results across different test types and clinical scenarios. Use this table as a starting point for result interpretation, then consult the detailed sections below for deeper guidance.

What Serology Tests Detect

Serology tests detect the adaptive immune response to pathogens, specifically antibodies produced by B cells. When the immune system encounters a foreign antigen, it generates antibodies that bind to that antigen with specificity. Serological assays exploit this binding reaction to determine whether an individual has been exposed to a particular pathogen or has mounted an immune response to vaccination.

Antibodies belong to several classes, each with distinct roles and temporal patterns. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) appears early in infection and typically indicates recent or active infection. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) appears later and persists longer, often indicating past infection or vaccination. Immunoglobulin A (IgA) is found primarily in mucosal surfaces and secretions. Some serology tests measure total antibody, while others distinguish between immunoglobulin classes to provide temporal information about infection timing.

Serology tests can also detect antigens directly. Antigen detection tests identify pathogen components in patient samples instead of host antibodies. These tests are useful for diagnosing active infection, particularly when antibody responses have not yet developed or when the host is immunocompromised.

The clinical presentation of many infectious diseases is variable and nonspecific, making laboratory confirmation essential for proper patient treatment. For example, human brucellosis presents with symptoms that overlap with many other febrile illnesses, and laboratory corroboration through culture, serological tests, or nucleic acid amplification assays is necessary for diagnosis. Serological tests remain a diagnostic cornerstone in resource-poor countries, although they lack specificity and can be difficult to interpret in individuals repeatedly exposed to Brucella organisms. Culture and serological methods remain the primary tools for diagnosis and post-therapeutic follow-up of human brucellosis until sufficiently validated commercial molecular tests become available.

Core Principles of Serological Testing

Antibody-Antigen Binding

All serology tests rely on the specific binding between antibodies and antigens. The strength and specificity of this binding determine test performance. Antibodies recognize epitopes, which are specific regions on antigens. A single antigen may contain multiple epitopes, and different individuals may produce antibodies against different epitopes of the same pathogen.

The avidity of antibody-antigen binding refers to the overall strength of interaction, which depends on both affinity (the strength of a single binding site) and valency (the number of binding sites). High-avidity antibodies develop weeks to months after infection and can help distinguish recent from past infection in some serological contexts.

Assay Formats and Detection Methods

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is one of the most widely used serology formats. In a typical indirect ELISA, antigen is immobilized on a microtiter plate, patient serum is added, and any bound antibody is detected using an enzyme-labeled anti-human antibody. A substrate is then added that produces a color change proportional to the amount of bound antibody. The optical density is measured spectrophotometrically and compared to a cutoff value.

Western blot separates pathogen proteins by gel electrophoresis, transfers them to a membrane, and probes the membrane with patient serum. Bound antibodies are detected using labeled secondary antibodies. The resulting band pattern reveals which specific pathogen proteins are recognized by the patient's immune system. Western blot is often used as a confirmatory test after a positive or equivocal screening ELISA.

Rapid lateral flow assays use capillary action to move patient sample across a membrane containing immobilized antigens or antibodies. A visible line indicates a positive result. These tests are simple, fast, and suitable for point-of-care use, but they generally have lower sensitivity than laboratory-based methods.

Serum neutralization tests measure functional antibodies that prevent pathogen entry into host cells. These tests are considered the gold standard for measuring protective immunity against certain viruses, including rabies. However, they are technically demanding because they require cell culture facilities and handling of live virus. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, indirect fluorescence antibody tests, and lateral flow methods are also used for rabies serology, but interpretation of results can be problematic both between methods and due to modifications of the same method that can lead to misinterpretations.

Test Performance Characteristics

Sensitivity is the proportion of truly positive samples that test positive. A highly sensitive test correctly identifies most infected individuals and produces few false negatives. Specificity is the proportion of truly negative samples that test negative. A highly specific test correctly identifies most uninfected individuals and produces few false positives.

Positive predictive value (PPV) is the probability that a positive test result indicates true infection. Negative predictive value (NPV) is the probability that a negative test result indicates true absence of infection. Predictive values depend also on sensitivity and specificity but also on disease prevalence in the tested population. In low-prevalence populations, even tests with high specificity produce many false positives. In high-prevalence populations, positive predictive value increases.

The Assay Guidance Manual from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences provides detailed information on assay development, validation, and quality control. The Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration outlines expectations for validating analytical methods used in regulated studies. Both documents are essential references for laboratories developing or validating serological assays.

Types of Serological Tests

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)

ELISA formats include indirect, sandwich, and competitive variants. Indirect ELISA detects antibodies in patient samples. Sandwich ELISA detects antigens by capturing them between two antibodies. Competitive ELISA measures the ability of patient antibodies to compete with labeled antibodies for antigen binding.

ELISA results are typically reported as positive, negative, or equivocal based on optical density relative to a cutoff. The cutoff is established during assay validation using known positive and negative samples. Equivocal results fall in a gray zone near the cutoff and require repeat testing or alternative confirmation.

For brucellosis diagnosis, ELISA demonstrates variable performance depending on the study population and antigen preparation. In one evaluation of diagnostic methods at endemic foci, ELISA showed 78% sensitivity and 91.18% specificity for detecting Brucella infection. The Wright agglutination test showed 75% sensitivity and 89.63% specificity, while the 2-mercaptoethanol test showed 68.96% sensitivity and 88.45% specificity. These figures illustrate that no single serological test is perfect, and results must be interpreted in the context of clinical presentation and exposure history.

Western Blot

Western blot provides confirmatory information by identifying antibodies against specific pathogen proteins. The test separates proteins by molecular weight, transfers them to a membrane, and detects patient antibody binding to individual protein bands. Different pathogens produce characteristic band patterns that aid in diagnosis.

In Lyme disease testing, two-tier algorithms traditionally use ELISA as a screening test followed by Western blot for confirmation. Recent evidence suggests that two-tier testing combining pairs of ELISAs, using C6 or VlsE assays to replace second-tier Western blots, may eliminate confusion about test interpretation. Serologic testing is robust in individuals with an a priori likelihood of infection of greater than 2 to 6 weeks duration. Western blots provide useful confirmation of screening ELISAs but may be replaced by second ELISAs in updated algorithms.

Agglutination Tests

Agglutination tests detect antibodies that cause clumping of antigen-coated particles. The tube agglutination test, such as the Wright test for brucellosis, uses serial dilutions of patient serum to determine an endpoint titer. The 2-mercaptoethanol test modifies the standard agglutination test to detect IgG antibodies specifically, which helps distinguish active from past infection.

The prozone phenomenon occurs when high concentrations of antibodies interfere with agglutination, producing false-negative results. Testing serial dilutions helps detect this phenomenon because positive reactions appear at higher dilutions while lower dilutions remain negative.

Serum Neutralization Tests

Serum neutralization tests measure the functional capacity of antibodies to block pathogen infection. These tests are the gold standard for assessing protective immunity against viruses such as rabies. The rabies virus neutralizing antibody plays a crucial role in protection, which explains why rabies serology is important. Serum neutralization methods have long been the gold standard due to their ability to measure function, but these methods can be difficult to perform for several reasons, including the need for cell culture and live virus handling.

A common assumption in reviewing laboratory test results is that different methods for the same component produce comparable results under all conditions or circumstances. This assumption is incorrect for rabies serology and other testing areas. Assumptions and misinterpretations provide the potential for detrimental decisions, ranging from regulatory to clinically related, and most importantly what level of antibody is protective.

Treponemal and Nontreponemal Tests for Syphilis

Syphilis testing uses two categories of serological tests. Nontreponemal tests detect antibodies broadly reactive to lipoidal antigens shared by both host and Treponema pallidum. Treponemal tests detect antibodies specific to T. pallidum. Both types of tests must be used in conjunction to help distinguish between an untreated infection and a past infection that has been successfully treated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published comprehensive recommendations for syphilis testing in 2024. These recommendations cover serologic testing and methods for identification of the causative agent. Newer serologic tests allow for laboratory automation but must be used in an algorithm that can also involve older manual serologic tests. Limited point-of-care tests for syphilis are available in the United States, and increased availability of sensitive and specific point-of-care tests could facilitate expansion of screening programs and reduce the time from test result to treatment.

Practical Workflow for Serology Testing

Step 1: Define the Testing Objective

Before selecting a serological test, define the clinical or research question. Is the goal to diagnose acute infection, confirm past exposure, assess vaccine response, or screen a population? The testing objective determines which antibody class to measure, which assay format to use, and how to interpret results.

For acute infection diagnosis, IgM testing may be appropriate because IgM appears early. For past infection or vaccination assessment, IgG testing is more suitable. For population screening, tests with high sensitivity are preferred to avoid missing cases, while confirmatory testing with high specificity follows positive screening results.

Step 2: Select the Appropriate Assay

Choose an assay validated for the intended use and population. Consider the pathogen, the stage of infection, the specimen type, and the available laboratory equipment. Review the assay manufacturer's instructions and validation data. Verify that the assay has been evaluated in populations similar to those being tested.

For hepatitis B serology, interpretation of various serologic profiles requires understanding the markers of hepatitis B virus infection. Maternal screening is important for interruption of perinatal transmission of HBV infection. Computer-assisted interpretation systems have been developed to support clinical decision-making for hepatitis B serology test results.

Step 3: Perform Quality Control

Run appropriate controls with each test batch. Positive controls verify that the assay detects the target antibody or antigen. Negative controls verify that the assay does not produce false positives. Calibrators or standards establish the quantitative relationship between signal and antibody concentration.

The World Health Organization Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook provides guidance on establishing and maintaining quality systems in laboratories. The Laboratory Biosafety Manual from the World Health Organization provides guidance on safe handling of biological materials, including patient samples and infectious agents.

Step 4: Interpret Results in Clinical Context

Interpret serology results in the context of clinical presentation, exposure history, vaccination status, and timing of sample collection. A single positive result may not confirm diagnosis, and a single negative result may not exclude infection. Paired acute and convalescent samples collected 2 to 4 weeks apart can demonstrate rising antibody titers, which supports diagnosis of recent infection.

For SARS-CoV-2 serology, significant validation is required to understand the clinical relevance of results. Common key assumptions regarding patient infectivity and protection are not currently supported by the evidence base. Serological assay results should be accompanied by clear interpretive support from laboratory and infectious diseases specialists.

Step 5: Document and Report

Document all test results, quality control data, and interpretation notes. Report results with appropriate caveats about test limitations. Include information about the assay used, the specimen type, and any factors that might affect interpretation. Flag results that require clinical correlation or repeat testing.

Records and Measurements

Maintain accurate records of all serology testing activities. Records should include patient identifiers, specimen collection dates, test dates, assay lot numbers, quality control results, and final interpretations. This documentation supports clinical decision-making, quality improvement, and regulatory compliance.

Quantitative serology results are reported as titers, concentrations, or index values. Titers represent the highest dilution that produces a positive reaction. Concentrations are expressed in international units or mass units per volume. Index values compare patient signal to a calibrator or cutoff.

For autoimmune disease testing, the measurement of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies in serum supports the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. High variability between methods has been described, impacting the diagnostic performance of classification criteria. The great number of commercially available assays, often lacking traceability to an international standard, is a major factor attributing to this between-assay variability. Reporting test result-specific likelihood ratios adds value in the interpretation of autoantibody tests.

Common Failure Patterns in Serology Testing

False Positives

False-positive results occur when the test detects antibodies that cross-react with related pathogens or when nonspecific binding produces signal above the cutoff. Cross-reactivity is a particular concern in areas where multiple related pathogens circulate. For example, serological tests for brucellosis may cross-react with antibodies against other Gram-negative bacteria.

Autoimmune conditions can also produce false-positive serology results because autoantibodies may bind to assay components. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis may produce antibodies that interfere with other serological tests.

False Negatives

False-negative results occur when antibody levels are below the detection limit of the assay. This situation arises in early infection before seroconversion, in immunocompromised patients who mount weak antibody responses, and in patients tested long after infection when antibody levels have declined.

The prozone phenomenon can cause false-negative agglutination results when high antibody concentrations prevent visible clumping. Testing serial dilutions helps detect this phenomenon.

Equivocal Results

Equivocal results fall near the assay cutoff and cannot be definitively classified as positive or negative. These results require repeat testing, often with a different assay format. If repeat testing remains equivocal, collect a new specimen or use an alternative diagnostic method.

Interpretation Errors

Interpretation errors occur when results are applied without adequate consideration of pretest probability, test performance characteristics, or clinical context. A positive result in a low-prevalence population is more likely to be false than true, even with a highly specific test. A negative result in a high-prevalence population may be false, particularly if the test has limited sensitivity.

For Lyme neuroborreliosis, cerebrospinal fluid testing can be informative in diagnosing central nervous system Lyme disease but not peripheral nervous system disorders. Lyme encephalopathy is not indicative of central nervous system infection. Post-treatment Lyme disease symptoms do not occur in patients who have had definite central nervous system Lyme infection, and these symptoms do not reflect central nervous system infection and do not respond to additional antimicrobial therapy.

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values in Practice

Calculating Test Performance

Sensitivity is calculated as the proportion of true positives correctly identified by the test. Specificity is calculated as the proportion of true negatives correctly identified by the test. These values are determined during assay validation using reference samples with known infection status.

Positive predictive value is calculated as the proportion of positive test results that are true positives. Negative predictive value is calculated as the proportion of negative test results that are true negatives. Predictive values depend on disease prevalence in the tested population.

Applying Predictive Values

When interpreting serology results, consider the pretest probability of disease based on clinical presentation and exposure history. In a patient with high pretest probability, a positive result strongly supports the diagnosis. In a patient with low pretest probability, a positive result may be false and requires confirmation.

For nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening, Epstein-Barr virus serology has limited positive predictive value, leading to excessive referrals. A triage approach based on nasopharyngeal swab Epstein-Barr virus C promoter methylation quantification among serology high-risk individuals identified 91.7% of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cases with 91.7% specificity in one cohort, reducing referrals by 85.3%. In an independent six-center cohort, the approach achieved 100% sensitivity and 96.1% specificity, reducing referrals by 91.9%. Compared with nasopharyngeal swab Epstein-Barr virus DNA load triage, the methylation approach showed equivalent sensitivity but higher specificity, lowering referrals needed to detect one case from 10 to 14 to approximately 2.

Uncertainty in Test Interpretation

All serology tests have inherent uncertainty. Predictive values, uncertainty, and interpretation of serology tests for the novel coronavirus have been studied to understand how test performance characteristics affect clinical decision-making. Understanding the uncertainty associated with serology results is essential for appropriate interpretation.

Quality Control and Assurance

Internal Quality Control

Internal quality control involves running control samples with each test batch to verify assay performance. Positive controls should produce results within an expected range. Negative controls should produce results below the cutoff. Control results should be recorded and monitored over time to detect trends or shifts in assay performance.

External Quality Assessment

External quality assessment programs provide blinded samples to laboratories for testing. Results are compared across participating laboratories to identify systematic errors and variation. Participation in external quality assessment programs helps laboratories identify problems with their testing procedures and improve performance.

Method Validation

Method validation demonstrates that an assay performs as intended for its specified use. Validation studies assess sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, and robustness. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance provides expectations for validating analytical methods used in regulated studies.

Biosafety Considerations

Serology testing involves handling patient samples that may contain infectious agents. Follow standard precautions and biosafety guidelines when collecting, processing, and testing specimens. The World Health Organization Laboratory Biosafety Manual provides guidance on safe handling of biological materials.

For pathogens that require enhanced biosafety measures, such as Brucella species, culture should be performed only in appropriate containment facilities. Serological testing poses lower risk than culture because it does not involve propagation of live organisms, but samples may still contain infectious agents and should be handled with appropriate precautions.

Limitations of Serology Testing

Timing of Sample Collection

Serology tests cannot detect infection during the window period before antibodies develop. The window period varies by pathogen and by the sensitivity of the assay. For acute infection diagnosis, molecular tests that detect pathogen nucleic acid may be more appropriate than serology during the window period.

For rabies serology, interpretation of results can be problematic also between methods but also due to modifications of the same method that can lead to misinterpretations. A common assumption is that different methods for the same component produce comparable results under all conditions or circumstances, but this assumption is incorrect.

Immunocompromised Patients

Immunocompromised patients may not mount detectable antibody responses to infection or vaccination. Serology results in these patients must be interpreted with caution, and alternative diagnostic methods may be required.

Past Infection Versus Current Infection

Serology tests often cannot distinguish between past infection and current infection. IgG antibodies may persist for years after infection, and a positive IgG result does not necessarily indicate active disease. IgM antibodies typically indicate recent infection but may persist for months in some infections.

For syphilis, both nontreponemal and treponemal tests must be used in conjunction to help distinguish between an untreated infection and a past infection that has been successfully treated. Nontreponemal test titers decline after successful treatment, while treponemal test results typically remain positive for life.

Cross-Reactivity

Cross-reactivity between related pathogens can produce false-positive results. This is a particular concern in areas where multiple related pathogens circulate. Confirmatory testing with more specific methods may be required when cross-reactivity is suspected.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Refer serology results for professional interpretation when any of the following conditions apply:

• Results are discordant with clinical presentation
• Equivocal results persist after repeat testing
• Results have regulatory or medicolegal implications
• Results involve rabies post-exposure prophylaxis decisions
• Results involve blood transfusion or organ transplantation decisions
• Results involve maternal screening for infections that can be transmitted perinatally
• Results are from immunocompromised patients
• Results will guide treatment decisions with significant consequences

For serological weak D phenotypes in blood typing, approximately 0.2 to 1% of routine RhD blood typings result in a serological weak D phenotype. Most serological weak D phenotypes in Caucasians express molecularly defined weak D types 1, 2, or 3 and can be managed safely as RhD-positive. When serological weak D phenotypes are detected, laboratories should complete RhD testing by determining RHD genotypes internally or by referral. Individuals with a serological weak D phenotype should be managed as RhD-positive or RhD-negative according to their RHD genotype.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Serology testing is regulated in most jurisdictions. Laboratories must comply with applicable regulations for test validation, quality control, personnel qualifications, and result reporting. The World Health Organization Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook provides guidance on establishing quality systems in laboratories.

For rabies serology, results may have regulatory implications for occupational health, travel, and vaccine response assessment. The case fatality rate of rabies is nearly 100%, and the crucial role of rabies virus neutralizing antibody in protection is well established. Interpretation of rabies serology results requires understanding the context of testing, including the purpose of testing and the population being tested.

For toxoplasmosis serology, interpretation difficulties arise from the need to distinguish recent from past infection, particularly in pregnant women where congenital transmission risk depends on infection timing. Knowledge-based interpretation systems have been developed to support interpretation of toxoplasmosis serology test results including fuzzy temporal concepts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between IgM and IgG antibodies in serology testing?

IgM antibodies appear early in infection, typically within days to weeks after exposure, and indicate recent or active infection. IgG antibodies appear later and persist longer, often indicating past infection or vaccination. Some serology tests measure total antibody, while others distinguish between immunoglobulin classes to provide temporal information about infection timing. Testing both IgM and IgG can help determine whether an infection is recent or occurred in the past.

How do sensitivity and specificity affect serology test interpretation?

Sensitivity is the proportion of truly positive samples that test positive, while specificity is the proportion of truly negative samples that test negative. A highly sensitive test produces few false negatives, while a highly specific test produces few false positives. No test has perfect sensitivity and specificity, so results must be interpreted in the context of clinical presentation and disease prevalence in the tested population.

What is positive predictive value and why does it matter?

Positive predictive value is the probability that a positive test result indicates true infection. It depends on sensitivity, specificity, and disease prevalence. In low-prevalence populations, even tests with high specificity produce many false positives. In high-prevalence populations, positive predictive value increases. Understanding predictive values helps clinicians avoid overdiagnosis in low-risk populations and underdiagnosis in high-risk populations.

Why do serology tests sometimes produce false-negative results?

False-negative results occur when antibody levels are below the detection limit of the assay. This situation arises in early infection before seroconversion, in immunocompromised patients who mount weak antibody responses, and in patients tested long after infection when antibody levels have declined. The prozone phenomenon can also cause false-negative agglutination results when high antibody concentrations prevent visible clumping.

What does an equivocal serology result mean?

An equivocal result falls near the assay cutoff and cannot be definitively classified as positive or negative. Equivocal results require repeat testing, often with a different assay format. If repeat testing remains equivocal, collect a new specimen or use an alternative diagnostic method. Equivocal results should be interpreted in the context of clinical presentation and exposure history.

How does disease prevalence affect serology test interpretation?

Disease prevalence affects predictive values even when sensitivity and specificity remain constant. In low-prevalence populations, most positive results are false positives. In high-prevalence populations, most positive results are true positives. Clinicians should consider pretest probability based on clinical presentation and exposure history when interpreting serology results.

Can serology tests distinguish between past infection and current infection?

Serology tests often cannot distinguish between past infection and current infection because IgG antibodies may persist for years after infection. IgM antibodies typically indicate recent infection but may persist for months in some infections. For some diseases, paired acute and convalescent samples can demonstrate rising antibody titers, which supports diagnosis of recent infection. For syphilis, nontreponemal test titers decline after successful treatment, helping distinguish active from past infection.

When should serology results be referred for professional interpretation?

Refer serology results for professional interpretation when results are discordant with clinical presentation, equivocal results persist after repeat testing, results have regulatory or medicolegal implications, results involve rabies post-exposure prophylaxis decisions, results involve blood transfusion or organ transplantation decisions, results involve maternal screening for infections that can be transmitted perinatally, results are from immunocompromised patients, or results will guide treatment decisions with significant consequences.

Related Diagnostic Guides

• How to Interpret Western Blot Results: Bands, Molecular Weight, and Quantification
• How to Interpret ELISA Results: Standard Curve, Cutoff, and Titers
• Negative Controls in ELISA: Setup and Interpretation for Reliable Results
• Protein Detection Methods: Western Blot, ELISA, and Immunofluorescence Compared
• How to Interpret a Citrate Utilization Test: Simmons Citrate Agar Protocol and Results

References and Further Reading

• Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook. World Health Organization.
• Laboratory Biosafety Manual. World Health Organization.
• Assay Guidance Manual. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
• Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• Laboratory Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis.. Clinical microbiology reviews, 2019.
• Lyme neuroborreliosis.. Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2019.
• Serological weak D phenotypes: a review and guidance for interpreting the RhD blood type using the RHD genotype.. British journal of haematology, 2017.
• Challenges of Rabies Serology: Defining Context of Interpretation.. Viruses, 2021.
• CDC Laboratory Recommendations for Syphilis Testing, United States, 2024.. MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports, 2024.
• SARS-CoV-2 serology: Test, test, test, but interpret with caution!. Clinical medicine (London, England), 2020.
• Hepatitis B serology--help in interpretation.. Pediatric clinics of North America, 1988.
• Diagnostic virology.. Clinics in laboratory medicine, 1987.
• Preparing Europe for imported Andes virus: the role of rapid serology and molecular diagnostics.. 2026.
• Nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening using Epstein-Barr virus Cp methylation triage in two population-based screening cohorts.. 2026.
• A critical review of diagnostic methods for camel brucellosis. 2026.
• Sensitivity of current laboratory methods for brucellosis diagnosis at endemic foci.. 2026.
• [Serology of toxoplasmosis: review of tests currently in use for diagnosis and prevention].. Quaderni Sclavo di diagnostica clinica e di laboratorio, 1980.
• Impact of autoimmune serology test results on RA classification and diagnosis. Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, 2022.
• A knowledge base extension for computer-assisted interpretation of hepatitis B serology test results. Leber Magen Darm, 1997.
• Knowledge-based interpretation of toxoplasmosis serology test results including fuzzy temporal concepts. Annual Conference of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society NAFIPS, 2001.
• Difficulties of interpretation in toxoplasma serology. Revue Francophone Des Laboratoires, 2006.
• COVID-19 serology: use and interpretation in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal, 2021.
• Analysis of medical prescribing practices for hepatitis B serology tests. Gastroenterologie Clinique Et Biologique, 2010.
• Predictive values, uncertainty, and interpretation of serology tests for the novel coronavirus. Scientific Reports, 2021.

This article is educational and does not replace validated laboratory procedures, institutional biosafety review, manufacturer instructions, or professional interpretation.