Interlaboratory Variability in Plasma Creatinine Measurement and the Relation with Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives The tracing of creatinine (Cr) reference materials to isotope dilution mass spectrometry–assigned values was implemented worldwide to reduce interlaboratory variability and improve assay accuracy. The aims of this study were to examine the current extent of interlaboratory variability and its effect on eGFR. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Leftover plasma from 2–3 consecutive days was obtained from 53 intensive care unit patients with a range of kidney functions. Individual patient samples were pooled and split and sent to 12 different laboratories for Cr measurement. For each patient, the mean Cr and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR (eGFR-EPI), assuming a 65-year-old nonblack woman, were determined. Interlaboratory variability was assessed by the range and SD of Cr and eGFR-EPI. This was repeated after stratifying by assay type and by the median Cr of 1.36 mg/dl. For patients whose eGFR-EPI range included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , the percentage of laboratories with eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 was determined. Results The mean±SD of the Cr and eGFR-EPI ranges were 0.20±0.09 mg/dl and 14±9 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 for Cr<1.36 mg/dl. Jaffe Cr results were an average 0.1 mg/dl (Cr≥1.36 mg/dl) and 0.05 mg/dl (Cr<1.36 mg/dl) higher than enzymatic results ( P <0.001 for both). Ten patients had an eGFR-EPI range that included 60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Their median eGFR-EPI range was 15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . There was significant discordance in the diagnosis of CKD (eGFR-EPI<60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ), with laboratories using Jaffe Cr methods making the diagnosis more frequently than those using enzymatic Cr methods (60% versus 39%). Conclusions Significant interlaboratory variability in Cr measurement still exists. Jaffe assays yield higher Cr values than enzymatic assays, leading to lower eGFR-EPIs and more frequent CKD diagnoses. Further improvements in assay performance are required to standardize patient CKD diagnosis and to facilitate longitudinal Cr monitoring across laboratories.
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 | 0.033 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".