Comparison of two automated methods for the measurement of glycated hemoglobin HBA1C: ADAMS A1c (ARKRAY) versus Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing® (SEBIA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this work is to present the results of a comparative study between the determination of glycated hemoglobin (HBA1C) on the ADAMS A1c® (ARKRAY) and Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing® (SEBIA).Materials and methods: 310 venous blood samples were randomly selected from routine HBA1C tests.The HBA1C assay was performed on ADAMS A1c® (ARKRAY) and Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing® (SEBIA) during the same day.The data obtained were analyzed by the statistical software MedCalc Version 15.1.0.Results: The results obtained show a good correlation between the 2 methods: the equation of the Passing-Bablok line is of type Y (Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing®) = -0.550+ 1.119 X (ADAMS A1c) the 95% confidence interval of this slope is -0.6467 to -0.4414 with r = 0.982 and p <0.0001.The Bland-Altman plot shows that the average bias between the two methods is in the order of 0.3 and that the difference between the Capillarys and HPLC measurements of Hba1c is in the range of +1.96 to -1.96 and the Deming regression equation Y (Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing®) = -0.3388+ 1.0911 X (ADAMS A1c).Conclusion: Our study shows a good agreement of HBA1C results between the Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing® (SEBIA) and ADAMS A1c® (ARKRAY).Laboratory work requires professionals to take into account variations in results when changing methods in their routine work by comparing their results on the various methods.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".