Comparing Measures of Cystatin C in Human Sera by Three Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cystatin C (Cys C) is measured by particle-enhanced nephelometric immunoassay (PENIA), particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA) and ELISA. AIM: To determine differences among these methods. METHOD: 80 normal human sera and 20 from patients with renal and/or heart disease were simultaneously assayed. Statistical analyses including receiver operating characteristics (ROC) of the three methods were compared. RESULTS: There was a highly significant correlation across the assay range between the ELISA and PENIA (r(2) = 0.94) and PETIA methods (r(2) = 0.95). Analysis of variance and bias were poor between the ELISA and the other two methods. Mean difference between ELISA and PETIA was 0.65 +/- 0.63 microg/ml, while it was 0.58 +/- 0.53 microg/ml between ELISA and PENIA. Accuracy (at 30% range) was 17 and 11% between ELISA and PETIA and ELISA and PENIA, respectively. Normalization of the ELISA by a factor of 0.66 improved this relationship. AUC of ROC curves of PENIA, ELISA and normalized ELISA to predict Cys C levels measured from PETIA were all above 0.87 (p = not significant between curves). Criterion values of ELISA*.66 method was close to PETIA measurements. CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference in measured human Cys C levels among the three methods, and normalization of ELISA narrows these differences.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".