A Comparison of Capillary Versus Venous N-Terminal Prohormone Brain Natriuretic Peptide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The natriuretic peptides B-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide provide a relatively low-cost and accessible screening tool for heart failure.Point of care testing using finger prick capillary blood samples has been developed for BNP.We compared capillary versus venous N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide measurements using a commercially available point of care testing assay.Methods: A cross-sectional prospective sub-analysis of a study screening 67 patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for cardiovascular disease using N-terminal fragments of B-type natriuretic peptide was performed.Capillary and venous blood samples for each patient were analysed using a point of care testing N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide whole blood assay.Correlation between capillary and venous N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide levels was assessed.The probability of heart failure was classified based on age-stratified N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide levels.Results: Mean capillary versus venous N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide values were similar, 236±530pg/mL vs. 237±512 (n=67), with high linear correlation (R2 = 0.96, P<0.05).Capillary testing reclassified 5 of the 39 patients (13%) designated low probability of HF by venous testing as having intermediate values, mainly in elderly patients.No patients designated as having a moderate or high probability of having venous testing were reclassified by capillary testing.Conclusion: There is a good correlation between N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide levels in capillary and venous samples, which suggests there may be a role for point of care testing of N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide using capillary blood samples.These findings need to be confirmed in larger populations, including more patients with heart failure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".