English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aim: To present the reader with different approaches used to compare immunogenicity methods when changes are needed during a clinical program. Results: Five case studies are presented, in the first two case studies, the approach utilized a small sample size for the comparison. In the third case, all samples from a study were analyzed by both methods. In the fourth case, the intended use of noncomparable assays in an integrated summary drove design of experiments to establish the expected limits of pooling data. In the fifth case, a selectivity approach was used as an alternate to use of incurred samples. Conclusion: When data pooling across methods is needed, it is important to define the limits of comparability.

Strategies for method comparison when changes in the immunogenicity method are needed within a clinical program