Talk:Hook effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Immcarle28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding to this stub by beefing up its content, adding a few citations and creating an image showing what the hook effect looks like. Below are some references I am using.
High-dose hook effect. Namburi. Journal of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences 2014
Studies of the 'hook' effect in the one-step sandwich immunoassay. Fernando SA. J Immunol Methods. 1992
Interference in immunoassays: avoiding erroneous results. Miller. CLI 2004
Interferences in Immunoassays. Schiettecatte. Advances in Immunoassay Technology.
Assessment of the prozone effect in malaria rapid diagnostic tests. Gillet. Malaria Journal 2009
Prozone effect of serum IgE levels in a case of plasma cell leukemia. Talamo. Journal of Hematology & Oncology 2010

Some of these will be directly cited, others are just providing background information. .Immcarle28 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The hook effect is a phenomenon which occurs in immunoassays and can lead to false negatives or inaccurately low results. The effect is caused by extremely high concentrations of either the antigen or an antibody used in the assay. The hook effect plagues sandwich assays more so than their two-step counterparts. Reducing the concentration of the offending antibody or antigen can remedy the problem. Stringent washing can reduce excess unbound antibody, which in certain assays assuages the hook effect. Immcarle28 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"Reducing the concentration of the offending antibody or antigen can remedy the problem".

Do you mean that blood test laboratories should add water to specimens and test again?

Do we have examples of common blood tests that often give false results?

91.159.191.219 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. By consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Hook effect → Prozone effect – Move to more commonly used name, see e.g. n-gram: [1]. Tom (LT) (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Molecular Biology has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Physiology has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

unsure - This is a topic that is related to the industry I work in, and I would say that both are used. I would say I see "hook effect" more often in the literature but not by any great excess, so I am not sure which would be the better title (sorry for the lack of solid reply). Red Fiona (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

against - Hook effect is the more common term. There are 369 results for this phrase in PubMed, and the number of counts year-by-year is rising. There are only 139 results for prozone effect, and the number of counts year-by-year is falling. 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredroach (talk • contribs)

I'd agree w/ Jaredroach, based on his argument above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

PubMed is not necessarily the be-all, end-all here, but I just did some drive-by assessments in some scholarly archives and databases, as well as in google n-grams, and while the precise ratios fluctuate wildly from context to context, I consistently see the same thing Jared notes in the case of PubMed: hook effect overtook prozone effect some time around 1980 and became two or three times more predominant in the historical corpus of sources from then. There's been a slight resurgence for prozone recently, but it still seems hook is much more prevalent on the whole. So I lean towards oppose on this one as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.