Interference Studies with Two Hospital-Grade and Two Home-Grade Glucose Meters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interference studies of four glucose meters (Nova Biomedical [Waltham, MA] StatStrip [hospital grade], Roche Diagnostics [Indianapolis, IN] Accu-Chek Aviva [home grade], Abbott Diabetes Care [Alameda, CA] Precision FreeStyle Freedom [home grade], and LifeScan [Milpitas, CA] SureStep Flexx [hospital grade]) were evaluated and compared to the clinical laboratory plasma hexokinase reference method (Roche Hitachi 912 chemistry analyzer). These meters were chosen to reflect the continuum of care from hospital to home grade meters commonly seen in North America. METHODS: Within-run precision was determined using a freshly prepared whole blood sample spiked with concentrated glucose to give three glucose concentrations. Day-to-day precision was evaluated using aqueous control materials supplied by each vendor. Common interferences, including hematocrit, maltose, and ascorbate, were tested alone and in combination with one another on each of the four glucose testing devices at three blood glucose concentrations. RESULTS: Within-run precision for all glucose meters was <5% except for the FreeStyle (up to 7.6%). Between-day precision was <6% for all glucose meters. Ascorbate caused differences (percentage change from a sample without added interfering substances) of >5% with pyrroloquinolinequinone (PQQ)-glucose dehydrogenase-based technologies (Aviva and Freestyle) and the glucose oxidase-based Flexx meter. Maltose strongly affected the PQQ-glucose dehydrogenase-based meter systems. When combinations of interferences (ascorbate, maltose, and hematocrit mixtures) were tested, the extent of the interference was up to 193% (Aviva), 179% (FreeStyle), 25.1% (Flexx), and 5.9% (StatStrip). The interference was most pronounced at low glucose (3.9-4.4 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: All evaluated glucose meter systems demonstrated varying degrees of interference by hematocrit, ascorbate, and maltose mixtures. PQQ-glucose dehydrogenase-based technologies showed greater susceptibility than glucose oxidase-based systems. However, the modified glucose oxidase-based amperometric method (Nova StatStrip) was less affected in comparison with the glucose oxidase-based photometric method (LifeScan SureStep Flexx).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".