{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02631578947368421, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009649122807017544, 'mean_word_length': 5.410112359550562, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detection of IgM antibodies against rubella virus: Comparison of two indirect ellsas and an anti‐IgM capture immunoassay

A commercial antibody capture enzyme immunoassay (Rubenz M) was compared to two commercial indirect enzyme immunoassays (Enzygnost IgM, Rubazyme‐M) for the detection of rubella‐specific IgM. Five hundred and fifty‐two sera collected between the day of onset and 272 days after the onset of the exanthem of primary rubella were tested. Rubenz M was more sensitive early and late after the onset of the exanthem than the two indirect ELISAs. Rubenz M also appeared more sensitive when 240 sera were examined from patients with possible rubella in pregnancy, reinfection in pregnancy, suspected intrauterine infection, and recent vaccination. However, 5.5% of 968 pregnant women with no history of rubellalike symptoms or recent vaccination, the majority with elevated HAI titers, gave a low‐positive or borderline result with Rubenz M. None of these women delivered a congenitally infected child. Therefore, borderline and low‐positive results must be interpreted with caution, as for any assay for rubella‐specific IgM.