MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411432922 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.06.077

POS0717 VALIDATION OF ANTI-14-3-3? (ETA) MULTIPLEX LABORATORY DEVELOPED TEST (LDT) FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS (axSpA)

2025· article· en· W4411432922 sur OpenAlexaff
A. Marotta, John Liggett, Walter P. Maksymowych, Narinder Sidhu, Sam Wilder, Scott Bleakley, Stephanie Wichuk, Norma Biln

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Thématique14-3-3 protein interactions
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAxial spondyloarthritisMultiplexTest (biology)Ankylosing spondylitisMedical physicsInternal medicinePhysical therapyBioinformaticsSacroiliitis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Despite significant therapeutic advances and the availability of effective treatment, the diagnosis of axSpA is often delayed by 5-10 years [1]. This can contribute to irreversible spinal damage that can be avoided. Current diagnostic practices depend on serial MRI, radiographic scoring, and HLA-B27 typing, each of which are not readily available to most referring physicians. Other than CRP as an inflammatory marker, there are no easily accessible blood tests with robust assays that may assist in profiling patients with early axSpA to reduce diagnostic delay for better outcomes. Extracellular 14-3-3η (eta) antigen and its corresponding autoantibodies (AAbs) represent a promising set of biomarkers, with emerging diagnostic and prognostic performance in axSpA that may assist early appropriate referrals [2]. Objectives: The objectives of this study are to 1) examine the technical performance characteristics and reliability of a newly developed 14-3-3η (eta) AAb multiplex assay, 2) demonstrate its clinical performance in axSpA compared to presumed healthy subjects and 3) generate a multi-analyte algorithm to aid in the diagnosis of axSpA. Methods: To establish the technical performance and reliability of the 14-3-3η (eta) AAb assay, several critical parameters were assessed including precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), sensitivity, specificity, linearity, hook effect, interference, accuracy, and robustness. For the clinical performance, peptides were prioritized based on Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and positivity cut-offs were established for each peptide using the Youden index. Standards were developed against each 14-3-3η peptide to enable quantification of the AAb levels in patient serum. A composite score based on peptide positivity was created and used to determine the strength of the likelihood of an axSpA diagnosis (n = 83) compared to presumed healthy subjects (n = 57). Results: The assay demonstrated high precision, with intra-assay repeatability %CVs ranging from 4.5% to 11.4% and intra-laboratory precision %CVs ranging from 8.3% to 14%. The LoD was on an average 3.2X the LoB, with the positivity cut-off at 2.3X the LoD, and 6.5X the LoB. The hook effect was evaluated at concentrations significantly higher than physiologically probable, and all targets did not show a meaningful loss of signal at high concentrations. The only slight exception was Peptide 5 at concentrations equal to and above 160 mg/dL; however, this signal was still 1600 times higher than expected patient values posing negligible risk to a false negative result. Accuracy was high, with a percent agreement of 96.0%. All peptides demonstrated positive predictive values (PPVs) ranging from 70.6% to 83.3%, exceeding the acceptance criteria. The assay showed minimal cross-reactivity and interference from normal serum elements (hemoglobin, bilirubin, triglycerides, cholesterol, and albumin), non-target antibodies (HAMA, heterophile, and infliximab), and organic chemicals (ibuprofen, sulfasalazine, and dexamethasone). All assay targets demonstrated linear dose-dependent signals (1.00 ± 0.05). The 14-3-3η AAb assay yielded good performance despite stress testing through protocol deviations, such as delays in secondary antibody incubation and final reading, confirming its robustness. As presented in Table 1, prioritized peptides 1 - 5 yielded significant areas under the curve (AUC) when discriminating axSpA from presumed healthy controls. Using cut-offs derived from the Youden index for each peptide, positivity scores were assigned and utilized to generate a composite score. The strength of the association for an axSpA diagnosis was evaluated using the Fisher's Exact test, with the model yielding a Chi-Square of 31.8, p < 0.0001 with an Odds Ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 3.9 - 19.6). The relative risk for each group (axSpA or healthy) based on composite positivity status is presented in Table 2. The data demonstrates a patient's higher relative risk for axSpA based on being composite positive when compared to healthy subjects. Table 1. ROC curve for prioritized peptides comparing axSpA to presumed healthy controls. Table 2. Relative Risk (RR) for an axSpA diagnosis based on compositive positivity comparing axSpA patient samples to healthy controls. Results expressed as the RR and 95%CI. Conclusion: The 14-3-3η (eta) AAb multiplex assay demonstrates strong technical performance with high precision, accuracy, and robustness. The assay effectively distinguished between axSpA patients and healthy controls, with minimal cross-reactivity and interference. The development of a composite score based on peptide positivity significantly enhanced the diagnostic confidence for axSpA. These findings support the reliability and clinical utility of the assay. Future research will focus on examining peptide expression signatures in patients with various autoimmune conditions with rheumatologic involvement compared to healthy individuals. REFERENCES: [1] Maksymowych WP. Biomarkers for Axial Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis, Activity, Prognosis, and Therapy Response. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1664-3224. [2] Maksymowych WP, et al. Autoantibodies to 14-3-3η: Biomarkers for Inflammation and Radiographic Progression in Ankylosing Spondylitis. ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; 2014. Available from: ACR Abstracts. Acknowledgements: NIL . Disclosure of Interests: Anthony Marotta Augurex Life Sciences Corp, Augurex Life Sciences Corp, Jason Liggett New Day Diagnostics LLC, New Day Diagnostics LLC, Walter P Maksymowych Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Navneet Sidhu Augurex Life Sciences Corp., Shelley Wilder New Day Diagnostics LLC, Stephen Bleakley Augurex Life Sciences Corp., Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Norma Biln Augurex Life Sciences Corp., Augurex Life Sciences Corp. © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesMême sujet14-3-3 protein interactionsTravaux en français237 207