Clinical Laboratory Practice Recommendations for the Use of Cardiac Troponin in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Expert Opinion from the Academy of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and the Task Force on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Bio-Markers of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This document is an essential companion to the third iteration of the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry [NACB,8 now the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) Academy] Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines (LMPG) on cardiac markers. The expert consensus recommendations were drafted in collaboration with the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Task Force on Clinical Applications of Bio-Markers (IFCC TF-CB). We determined that there is sufficient clinical guidance on the use of cardiac troponin (cTn) testing from clinical practice groups. Thus, in this expert consensus document, we focused on clinical laboratory practice recommendations for high-sensitivity (hs)-cTn assays. This document utilized the expert opinion class of evidence to focus on the following 10 topics: (a) quality control (QC) utilization, (b) validation of the lower reportable analytical limits, (c) units to be used in reporting measurable concentrations for patients and QC materials, (d) 99th percentile sex-specific upper reference limits to define the reference interval; (e) criteria required to define hs-cTn assays, (f) communication with clinicians and the laboratory's role in educating clinicians regarding the influence of preanalytic and analytic problems that can confound assay results, (g) studies on hs-cTn assays and how authors need to document preanalytical and analytical variables, (h) harmonizing and standardizing assay results and the role of commutable materials, (i) time to reporting of results from sample receipt and sample collection, and (j) changes in hs-cTn concentrations over time and the role of both analytical and biological variabilities in interpreting results of serial blood collections.
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 | 0.128 | 0.257 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".