MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4414740356 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.331

A-346 Exploring Clinical Decision Making Cutoffs for the Siemens Serum HCG Assays in Pregnancy

2025· article· en· W4414740356 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Khashayar Hanjani, Li Wang, Junyan Shi

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHuman chorionic gonadotropinPregnancyChartPregnancy testCutoffTrophoblastRetrospective cohort studyGonadotropin

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) is primarily produced by the trophoblast cells early after embryo implantation, making it ideal for assessing early pregnancy status. However, low levels of HCG can be secreted from the pituitary gland in non-pregnant individuals which can make interpretation challenging. In two quaternary centres in British Columbia, Canada, the total serum HCG assay on the Siemen’s Atellica platform is used. A cutoff of =2.0 IU/L, corresponding to the limit of detection (LOD), was used when the test was implemented. However, borderline elevated HCG results were noted by clinical teams, particularly in the pediatric population, raising concerns about false positives. This study explored the feasibility of using higher HCG cutoffs in assessing pregnancy status in female patients of child-bearing age, between the ages of 10 and 50. Methods A retrospective study combining laboratory data analysis and chart review was performed. From September 13, 2023 to November 13, 2024, total HCG results on the Atellica platform at two centers (one pediatric) were pulled via laboratory information systems. Results of intact HCG assays from four hospitals using the Siemens Dimensions EXL platform were also pulled. For both assays, data was filtered to select test results between 3IU/L and 6IU/L (borderline). Patients with these results were investigated by assessing whether a repeat test was done within a 6-week period. Chart review was then carried if on repeat testing there was an increase in HCG beyond 6 IU/L which could be consistent with pregnancy. Additionally, given increased concern for the pediatric population, chart review was conducted for borderline results from our pediatric centre. Results A total of 22335 HCG tests were identified, 2% of which were in the borderline range. Of these, 111 had a follow-up test within 6 weeks. Only 7 individuals had a value more than 6IU/L on repeat. On chart review, 3 pregnancies were identified but all likely had implantation occur between the two tests, meaning that the initial borderline value was still reflective of non-pregnant status. Of note, the proportion of borderline HCG values was highest at the extremes of age, with 4.9% of values in the 10-to-15-year range and 8.4% in the 45-to-50-year range. In the subset analysis from our pediatric center, a total of 614 HCG tests were identified and 27 cases with borderline results were reviewed, none of which represented pregnancy. Repeat testing rate was 41%, with some cases reflecting anxiety among both the children, families, and ordering physicians in light of a possible positive result. Conclusion Using the LOD as the cutoff for determination pregnancy status in the Atellica and Dimensions platforms produces false positive results owing to borderline values. This phenomenon was more pronounced around puberty, with chart review revealing adverse emotional impacts and unnecessary healthcare utilization. Meanwhile, our analysis revealed that treating these borderline values as negative results would not have resulted in any pregnancies being missed. These findings support adoption of a higher threshold detection of HCG though further studies are needed to define this threshold.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,480
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,941
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,480
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,760
Tête enseignante GPT0,653
Écart entre enseignants0,107 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

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'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical ChemistryMême sujetStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsTravaux en français237 207