Protein C Assay Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the performance and frequency of protein C reagents currently used by clinical laboratories, we analyzed North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA) protein C proficiency testing data from 6 surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 (2009-1 to 2009-3 and 2010-1 to 2010-3). Interlaboratory coefficients of variation (CV) for commonly used reagents on a survey with normal protein C ranged from 8% to 12% for antigenic assays, from 4% to 7% for chromogenic activity assays, and from 7% to 22% for clot-based activity assays. CVs for commonly used reagents on specimens with abnormal protein C ranged from 15% to 24% for antigenic, 4% to 11% for chromogenic, and 10% to 17% for clot-based assays (averaged across 3 surveys). Some reagents were used by relatively few laboratories and therefore additional study may be needed for those reagents. For all commonly used reagents, biases were usually small and often not statistically significant. All assessed reagents were clinically accurate, and were considered acceptable options for a specialized coagulation laboratory.
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 | 0.036 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".