Similarity of Serum and Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) are implicated in many normal physiological processes and pathological states, including cancer. For large consortia projects, it may be necessary to make comparisons among studies with different specimens that were not collected specifically to optimize the measurement of IGFs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare IGFs in matched serum and plasma samples. METHODS: We measured IGF-I, IGF-II, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein (IGFBP)-3, C-peptide, and leptin in serum and ethylenediaminetetraacetic-containing-plasma samples obtained concurrently from 30 healthy women aged 64-80 years in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial using chemiluminescent or colorimetric enzyme-linked immune assays. Coefficients of variation (CVs) and correlations were determined. RESULTS: Intraassay CVs ranged from 0.4% for IGFBP-3 to 10% for IGF-II. Mean concentrations of all analytes were higher in the serum, but the differences in mean concentrations of the analytes between serum and plasma were all <11%. Concordance correlation coefficients of matched serum/plasma specimens were 0.92, 0.91, 0.82, 0.96, and 0.99 for IGF-I, IGFBP-3, IGF-II, C-peptide, and leptin, respectively. CONCLUSION: IGF concentrations measured in serum and plasma are highly correlated but are consistently slightly higher in serum, suggesting that IGF values should be corrected for systematic bias, particularly in consortial efforts when pooling data derived from different specimens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".