Measuring B-Type Natriuretic Peptide From Capillary Blood or Venous Sample: Is It the Same?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart Check (AHC) BNP test represents the most recent advancement. It is a rapid point-of-care (POC) immunoassay, projected for measuring BNP directly from a capillary whole blood sample. This study aimed at comparing the analytical and clinical performances of this new POC to our reference method (Abbott Architect System). METHODS: One hundred eleven patients with stable chronic heart failure (CHF) referring to one cardiac rehabilitation center were enrolled from December 2013 to May 2015. These patients were subjected to a simultaneous capillary (AHC) and plasma (Abbott) BNP measurements. Clinical and analytical performances of AHC were assessed and compared to the reference method. RESULTS: Capillary BNP showed a good correlation with the reference method (r = 0.94, P < 0.0001), although the values diverged when BNP was higher than 1,500 pg/mL. Indeed, the AHC had a relatively poor precision and the coefficient of variability was 10.1% and 18% for low and high controls, respectively. However, both methods showed similar diagnostic performances in discriminating the patients with heart failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I from those belonging to NYHA classes II-III, with values of area under the curve (AUC) of 0.983 and 0.984, respectively, and equivalent sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. CONCLUSION: The AHC BNP test is a good POC able to provide reliable information about the hemodynamic status of CHF patients, especially of those belonging to NYHA classes I-III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".