Effects of Hemoglobin C and S Traits on the Results of 14 Commercial Glycated Hemoglobin Assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glycated hemoglobin is widely used in the management of diabetes mellitus. At least 300,000 Americans with diabetes mellitus have the hemoglobin (Hb) C or S trait. The accuracy of HbA1c methods can be adversely affected by the presence of these traits. We evaluated the effects of HbC and HbS traits on the results of 14 commercial HbA1c methods that use boronate affinity, enzymatic, immunoassay, and ion exchange methods. Whole blood samples from people homozygous for HbA or heterozygous for HbC or HbS were analyzed for HbA1c. Results for each sample type were compared with those from the CLC 330 comparative method (Primus Diagnostics, Kansas City, MO). After correcting for calibration bias by comparing results from the homozygous HbA group, method bias attributable to the presence of HbC or HbS trait was evaluated with a clinically significant difference being more than 10% (ie, 0.6% at 6% HbA1c). One immunoassay method exhibited clinically significant differences owing to the presence of HbC and HbS traits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".