Comparison of four chromatographic methods used for measurement of glycated hemoglobin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This parameter’s results accuracy has a special importance in the management of diabetic patients since targets for optimal glycemic control are established using HbA1c values. Several error sources can influence the obtained value, some of them can be counteracted (ex. pipetting errors, storage), and others should be taken into consideration at the interpretation of the result (ex. presence of hemoglobin variants). The aim of this study was to compare four chromatographic methods regarding the costs and the influence of certain error sources on the accuracy of the result. Materials and methods: Samples and controls were analyzed using Variant I, Micromat II and In2it (Bio-Rad) systems, and the BIOMIDI reagent kit for HbA1c measurement. Results: Positive correlation could be observed comparing the results obtained using different methods, except the patients presenting elevated HbF. Pipetting errors modify the results up to 5% in case of Variant I, and up to 10% in case of Micromat II in the tested range. One day of improper storage at room temperature causes 3% deviation from the actual value using the Variant I analyzer and 5% in case of Micromat II and In2it equipment. As a conclusion, depending on the number of samples, automated chromatographic analyzers are the most appropriate equipments for the determination of HbA1c.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".