MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145076853 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/48.6.964

Monoclonal Paraprotein May Interfere with the Roche Direct HDL-C Plus Assay

2002· letter· en· W2145076853 on OpenAlexaff
Nadine Kadri, Pierre Douville, Pierre Lachance

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsCégep de LévisHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyMolecular biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report here the observation of a falsely decreased HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) result obtained with the Roche HDL-C Plus assay (polyethylene glycol-modified enzymes, sulfated α-cyclodextrin, and dextran sulfate; cat no. 1930648) in an asymptomatic 78-year-old woman (1). The total cholesterol of the patient was 3.2 mmol/L, the triglycerides were 1.3 mmol/L, and the HDL-C was suppressed (<0) on a Roche Modular analyzer. The same analysis was repeated on the Johnson & Johnson Vitros (with magnetic separation of particles; cat. no. 1042523) and the Beckman LX-20 (with a polyanion-polymer/detergent reagent; cat. no. 650207) analyzers. The HDL-C concentrations according to these methods were 1.2 and 1.0 mmol/L, respectively. On the Roche analyzer, the absorbance of the blank was higher than the final absorbance result, giving a negative value by subtraction. Lipoprotein electrophoresis revealed a normal α band. We therefore suspected the presence of a paraprotein that would precipitate with the first reagent, possibly related to dextran. Serum total proteins and albumin were 101 and 40 g/L, respectively. Serum protein electrophoresis revealed a monoclonal band in the γ region that was unknown to the treating physician. This monoclonal band was characterized by immunofixation as an IgM-κ band that was estimated at 30 g /L. We selected other sera from patients known to have a monoclonal band and assayed these sera for HDL-C with two different assays: the Roche HDL-C Plus assay and a precipitation method using heparin-manganese (Table 1). HDL-C results of patients with known monoclonal paraproteins. HDL-C results of patients with known monoclonal paraproteins. The interference was identified by visual inspection of the absorbance graphs and confirmed with the precipitation method. We identified other cases of falsely decreased results in some samples, independent of the concentration or type of paraprotein involved (Table 1). The exact incidence of this bias was not known, but it was possibly not uncommon because we found several cases in a small series of patients. Such interference does not always lead to suppression of a HDL-C result because it could simply lower the result. This decrease would go unnoticed with the current Roche application. In our view, some modifications could be introduced to screen for this phenomenon. This interference by monoclonal bands with the HDL-C direct assay is not reported in the 1997 edition of Effects of Disease on Clinical Laboratory Tests by Friedman and Young (2) or in the manufacturer’s package insert, except for the following statement: “In rare cases, increased immunoglobulin concentrations can lead to falsely increased HDL-cholesterol results”. There is no mention of falsely decreased results in patients with paraproteins. Because the prevalence of paraproteins in the population is significant, it is conceivable that some patients with benign paraproteins may have a falsely decreased HDL-C result that could alter their cardiovascular risk estimates and treatment by physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207