Evaluation of the protein gap for detection of abnormal serum gammaglobulin level: an imperfect predictor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The value of the serum protein gap (PG, difference between total protein and albumin) in the detection of hyper- or hypogammaglobulinemia is not well established. We assessed the performance of PG for the detection of hyper- or hypogammaglobulinemia in a large sample of patients. METHODS: We reviewed all paired measurements of serum total protein, albumin, quantitative immunoglobulins, and serum protein electrophoresis tested between March 2014 and June 2017 at the Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratory Association. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and likelihood ratios of PG at thresholds between 18 and 44 g/L for the detection of hyper- and hypogammaglobulinemia were assessed. RESULTS: There were 19,575 and 5,426 simultaneous paired data points to assess hyper- and hypogammaglobulinemia identified by serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) and nephelometry, respectively. The mean PG was 36.3 g/L (SD 8.6). The prevalence of hypergammaglobulinemia (>16 g/L by SPE) and hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG <7 g/L) was 21.9 and 5.5%, respectively. High PG (≥38 g/L) had sensitivity and specificity of 76.2 and 71.5% respectively for hypergammaglobulinemia. PG ≥38 g/L had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93.1% for monoclonal, and 96.9% for polyclonal gammopathy. A PG threshold of ≤18 g/L had of sensitivity of 0.4%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100% and NPV of 80.1% to detect hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG <7 g/L). CONCLUSIONS: High and low PG values were not sensitive in detecting hyper- or hypogammaglobulinemia, although negative predictive values were high for both. Performance of PG should be further evaluated prospectively in specific populations at risk of for abnormal IgG levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".