A-179 A Multi-Centre Assessment of Comparability of Hemolysis Indices on Automated Analyzers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Hemolysis is a prevalent preanalytical issue that compromises quality and patient safety during laboratory testing. It can interfere with sample analysis, leading to inaccurate results, sample rejection, and delayed patient treatment. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) has identified hemolysis as a high-priority quality indicator, defined as the rate of samples with hemoglobin (Hgb) above 50 mg/dL (>0.5 g/L). Automated methods have improved hemolysis detection in serum/plasma samples. However, the internal calibration of automated methods for hemoglobin estimation (i.e. Hemolysis index) is usually not verified for accuracy against external standards by the end-user nor standardized across methods. This study aims to address this gap by comparing hemoglobin quantification using the serum indices application on automated chemistry analyzers versus a conventional spectrophotometric method that is validated for plasma free hemoglobin measurement. Methods Plasma samples (n=20) were analyzed at nine laboratories across the Greater Toronto Area in Canada. The plasma free Hgb concentrations in patient samples ranging from 5 to 450 mg/dL (0.05 to 4.50 g/L) were determined with the method of Khan SE et al. (Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1981;11(2):126-31) on Agilent Cary 60 UV/Vis spectrophotometer as the reference. In contrast, estimated Hgb were measured on seven automation systems: Abbott Alinity c, Roche cobas pro (n=2), Roche cobas 8000, Roche cobas 6000, Ortho Vitros 5600 (n=2), Siemens Atellica CH and Beckman Coulter AU680. Method comparison analyses were performed using Passing-Bablok linear regression. Bias was assessed at 50 mg/dL, the IFCC threshold for the hemolysis quality indicator. Subsequently, the percent bias for each automated application was calculated as [(automated Hgb - 50 mg/dL) / 50 mg/dL] x 100. Results All methods’ coefficient of variation (CV) of the hemolysis values for each sample revealed a close agreement among the automated analyzers with a combined CV of 24% and median CV of 8% (range 3% to 73%). However, the biases for Hgb estimates at the IFCC cut-off ranged from 1.4% to 23.0% across the entire range of Hgb levels (5 to 450 mg/dL). The specific biases observed when applying the linear regression for samples with Hgb concentrations <100 mg/dL were: 1.4-10.4% for Roche cobas analyzers, 20.2-21.4% for Ortho Vitros 5600 analyzers, 16.2% for Siemens Atellica CH, 8.0% for Abbott Alinity c and 18.2% for Beckman Coulter AU680, highlighting variations in Hgb estimates among automated analyzers. All automated analyzers demonstrated excellent correlation with the Khan method. The Pearson’s R values ranged from 0.997-0.999 for Hgb concentrations between 5-450 mg/dL, and 0.981-0.999 for Hgb concentrations <100 mg/dL. Conclusion In conclusion, our study revealed excellent correlation among automated analyzers in measuring hemolysis indices, supporting the reliability of these methods. Assessment of hemolysis at the sample level supports the IFCC harmonized quality indicator. However, notable positive biases were observed among some analyzers, which may impact comparisons of hemolysis rates, emphasizing the need for further harmonization among manufacturers.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».