Dataset Information

A method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays (clinical biochemical, blood count, immunological, and qPCR) to evaluate analytical performance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The measurement method for experimental resolution and related data to evaluate analytical performance is poorly explored in clinical research. We established a method to measure the experimental resolution of clinical tests, including biochemical tests, automatic hematology analyzer methods, immunoassays, chemical experiments, and qPCR, to evaluate their analytical performance.

Methods

Serially diluted samples in equal proportions were measured, and correlation analysis was performed between the relative concentration and the measured value. Results were accepted for p ≤ 0.01 of the correlation coefficient. The minimum concentration gradient (eg, 10%) was defined as the experimental resolution. For this method, the smaller the value, the higher the experimental resolution and the better the analytical performance.

Results

The experimental resolution of the most common biochemical indices reached 10%, with some even reaching 1%. The results of most counting experiments showed experimental resolution up to 10%, whereas the experimental resolution of the classical chemical assays reached 1%. Unexpectedly, the experimental resolution of more sensitive assays, such as immunoassays was only 25% when using the manual method and 10% for qPCR.

Conclusion

This study established a method for measuring the experimental resolution of laboratory assays and provides a new index for evaluating the reliability of methods in clinical laboratories.

SUBMITTER: Sun C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649380 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMalaria is an infectious disease considered as one of the biggest causes of mortality in endemic areas. This life-threatening disease needs to be quickly diagnosed and treated. The standard diagnostic tools recommended by the World Health Organization are thick blood smears microscopy and immuno-chromatographic rapid diagnostic tests. However, these methods lack sensitivity especially in cases of low parasitaemia and non-falciparum infections. Therefore, the need for more accurate and reliable diagnostic tools, such as real-time polymerase chain reaction based methods which have proven greater sensitivity particularly in the screening of malaria, is prominent. This study was conducted at the French National Malaria Reference Centre to assess sensitivity and specificity of two commercial malaria qPCR kits and two in-house developed qPCRs compared to LAMP.Methods183 blood samples received for expertise at the FNMRC were included in this study and were subjected to four different qPCR methods: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test, the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test, the in-house HRM and the in-house TaqMan qPCRs. The specificity and sensitivity of each method and their confidence intervals were determined with the LAMP-based assay Alethia® Malaria as the reference for malaria diagnosis. The accuracy of species diagnosis of the Ampliquick® Malaria test and the two in-house qPCRs was also evaluated using the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage test as the reference method for species identification.ResultsThe main results showed that when compared to LAMP, a test with excellent diagnostic performances, the two in-house developed qPCRs were the most sensitive (sensitivity at 100% for the in-house TaqMan qPCR and 98.1% for the in-house HRM qPCR), followed by the two commercial kits: the Biosynex Ampliquick® Malaria test (sensitivity at 97.2%) and the BioEvolution Plasmodium Typage (sensitivity at 95.4%). Additionally, with the in-house qPCRs we were able to confirm a Plasmodium falciparum infection in microscopically negative samples that were not detected by commercial qPCR kits. This demonstrates that the var genes of P. falciparum used in these in-house qPCRs are more reliable targets than the 18S sRNA commonly used in most of the developed qPCR methods for malaria diagnosis.ConclusionOverall, these results accentuate the role molecular methods could play in the screening of malaria. This may represent a helpful tool for other laboratories looking to implement molecular diagnosis methods in their routine analysis, which could be essential for the detection and treatment of malaria carriers and even for the eradication of this disease.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the clinical significance of measuring bile acids concentration in plasma or serum has been recognized for long in patients with hepatobiliary disease and/or bile acid malabsorption, the reference separation techniques are expensive and mostly unsuitable for early diagnosis and for measuring large volumes of samples. Therefore, this study was aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of three commercial enzymatic techniques for measuring total bile acids in plasma using a fully-automated clinical chemistry platform.MethodsThree commercial enzymatic assays (from Diazyme, Randox and Sentinel) were adapted for use on a Cobas Roche c501. We performed imprecision and linearity studies, and we compared results with those obtained using a reference liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) technique on an identical set of lithium-heparin plasma samples.ResultsTotal imprecision was optimal, always equal or lower than 3%. All assays had optimal linearity between 3-138 ?mol/L. The comparison studies showed good correlation with LC-MS data (Spearman's correlation coefficients always >0.92), but all plasma samples values were significantly underestimated using the commercial enzymatic assays (-44% for Diazyme, -16% for Randox and -12% for Sentinel). The agreement at the 10 and 40 ?mol/L diagnostic thresholds of total bile acids in plasma ranged between 86-92%. This discrepancy was found to be mainly attributable to a heterogeneous composition in terms of bile acids content of the three assay calibrators.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the analytical performance of the three commercial enzymatic assays is excellent, thus confirming that automation of this important test by means of enzymatic assessment may be feasible, practical, reliable and supposedly cheap. Nevertheless, the underestimation of values compared to the reference LC-MS also suggests that the local definition and validation of reference ranges according to the combination between the specific enzymatic assay and the different clinical chemistry platforms may be advisable.