Talk:Hook effect

message: 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)
thread_title:  

message: :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)
replies: text: Hook effect →  – Move to more commonly used name, see e.g. n-gram: . Tom (LT) (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 September 2022