A Comparison of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin– Related Components in Fresh Frozen Serum With the Proficiency Testing Material Used by the College of American Pathologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context. —As part of a College of American Pathologists (CAP) proficiency testing survey, a comparison is made between human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) results from an actual patient pool and a similarly targeted artificial sample. The goal is to gain insight into the possible source(s) of bias attributable to the proficiency testing material (PTM) with a view toward creating more appropriate survey materials. Objective. —To compare hCG and related variants in a pool of fresh frozen sera (FFS) with that found in PTM. Design. —The 2003 CAP K/KN-A Survey included a FFS specimen along with admixtures of PTM. The FFS (K-02) and 1 PTM admixture (K-01) had similar mean hCG values. Five hCG-related analytes were measured on these 2 samples by a reference laboratory. Participants. —Approximately 1800 clinical laboratories and diagnostic test kit manufacturers participated in the K/ KN-A Survey. Main Outcome Measures. —Method imprecision (coefficient of variation) and method bias (relative difference between peer group mean and all-method median) were computed for the 2 samples. Differences were evaluated with respect to hCG-related analytes levels. Results. —All-method hCG results were 12.9 mIU/mL (12.9 IU/L) for the PTM material and 21.6 mIU/mL (21.6 IU/L) for the FFS material. Method biases for 14 manufacturers were greater for PTM than for FFS (−40% to +35% and −16% to +23%). Twelve of 14 methods had higher coefficients of variation on PTM. Total hCG and free β hCG measurements by the reference laboratory were 14.1 mIU/ mL (14.1 IU/L) for the PTM material and 18.5 mIU/mL (18.5 U/L) for the FFS material (FFS), and 2.4 (PTM) and 0.7 (FFS) mIU/mL (2.4 and 0.7 IU/L), respectively. On a molar basis, free β represented 17% and 4% of the total hCG, respectively. Levels of hyperglycosylated hCG, nicked hCG, and β core fragment were not measurable in either sample. Conclusions. —It is unlikely that the hCG added to the PTM is the source of the increased bias and variability. The main difference is a 3-fold increase in free β found in the PTM, but methods previously found to strongly react with free β were not systematically elevated. The biases between manufacturers found for the FFS specimen are likely attributable to calibration differences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".