Antibody-mediated interferences affecting cardiac troponin assays: recommendations from the IFCC Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Biomarkers (IFCC C-CB) provides educational documents to facilitate the interpretation and use of cardiac biomarkers in clinical laboratories and practice. Our aim is to improve the understanding of certain key analytical and clinical aspects of cardiac biomarkers and how these may interplay. Measurements of cardiac troponin (cTn) have a prominent place in the clinical work-up of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. It is therefore important that clinical laboratories know how to recognize and assess analytical issues. Two emerging analytical issues resulting in falsely high cTn concentrations, often several fold higher than the upper reference limit (URL), are antibody-mediated assay interference due to long-lived cTn-antibody complexes, called macrotroponin, and crosslinking antibodies that are frequently referred to as heterophilic antibodies. We provide an overview of antibody-mediated cTn assay interference and provide recommendations on how to confirm the interference and interpret the results.
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 | 0.134 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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".