MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247242596 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.139

A139 AGREEMENT OF IBDOC® AND QUANTON CAL® RAPID LATERAL FLOW-BASED FECAL CALPROTECTIN TESTS WITH ACCEPTED LAB-BASED ASSAYS FOR MONITORING INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2018· article· en· W4247242596 on OpenAlexaffabout
Reed T. Sutton, Connie Prosser, Neil Dhami, Daniel Sadowski, Sander van Zanten, Karen I. Kroeker, K Wong, Brendan P. Halloran, Richard N. Fedorak, Vivian Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalprotectinMedicinePoint-of-care testingInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgeryDiseaseImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal calprotectin (FCP) is a useful biomarker for monitoring inflammatory bowel disease, showing good correlation to endoscopic disease activity. Currently used lab tests take 2–4 weeks to return a result, limiting their usefulness. Recently, lateral flow-based rapid tests have been combined with smartphone applications to allow patients to complete FCP testing at home, with their physician receiving the result the same day. We aim to compare FCP results from two point-of-care test (POCT) devices (IBDoc; Buhlmann, Quanton Cal; Preventis) in real world use, to two widely accepted lab based methods. Patients brought first morning stool to the University of Alberta IBD clinic, completed partial Mayo (pMayo) and Harvey-Bradshaw index (mHBI) scores, received training, and performed the IBDoc test. A portion of their raw sample was sent to the hospital lab, stored at -20°C, thawed and then analyzed using Quanton Cal POCT kits (performed by laboratory staff) and two weight-based lab tests: Immunodiagnostik (ELISA) and Buhlmann Turbo (immunoturbidimetric) assays. Numerical FCP values were tabulated and dichotomized by ≥250 µg/ml (active) or <250 µg/ml (remission). Clinical scores were dichotomized as symptomatic if mHBI≥5 or pMayo≥2. Twenty patients provided raw stool and completed the IBDoc test, including 12 (60.0%) females and 9 (45.0%) with Crohn’s disease. The median age is 33.5 years (IQR: 29.5 to 37.5). Maintenance medications: 3 (15.0%) taking no medications, 4 (20.0%) on 5-ASA, 4 (20.0%) on immunomodulators, 9 (45.0%) on biologics, of whom 3 (15.0%) were on biologic combotherapy. Median FCP values and IQRs for all four tests are shown in Figure 1. Spearman’s correlation with results from Immunodiagnostik was 0.93 for IBDoc, 0.89 for Quanton Cal, and 0.97 for Buhlmann Turbo. Upon dichotomizing FCP as active or inactive, 18/20 (90%) of results were in agreement between IBDoc and Immunodiagnostik, 19/20 (95%) between Quanton Cal and Immunodiagnostik, and 19/20 (95%) between IBDoc and Quanton Cal. However; pMayo/mHBI and FCP were not as agreeable with 12/20 (60%) reaching the same conclusion (symptomatic or asymptomatic) for IBDoc, 13/20 (65%) for Quanton Cal, and 14/20 (70%) for Immunodiagnostik. There is good correlation between POCTs and lab tests at <250 µg/ml, although correlation was better between the two lab tests. POCTs can differentiate disease activity from remission and can be performed remotely, an advantage for rural patients. The quantitative values >250 µg/ml are not reproducible and would be misleading if used to monitor disease progression. FCP close to cutoffs should be repeated and does not correlate very well with patient reported symptoms. None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→