MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361297527 · doi:10.1515/cclm-2023-0209

Detection of antinuclear antibodies: recommendations from EFLM, EASI and ICAP

2023· article· en· W4361297527 on OpenAlexaff
Carolien Bonroy, Martine Vercammen, Walter Fierz, Luís Eduardo Coelho Andrade, Lieve Van Hoovels, María Infantino, Marvin J. Fritzler, Dimitrios P. Bogdanos, Ana Kozmar, Benoît Nespola, Sylvia Broeders, Dina Patel, Manfred Herold, Bing Zheng, Eric Chan, Raivo Uibo, Anna‐Maija Haapala, Lucile Musset, Ulrich Sack, Gábor Nagy, Tatjana Sundic, Katarzyna Fischer, Maria-José Rego de Sousa, Marı́a Luisa Vargas, Catharina Eriksson, Ingmar Heijnen, Ignacio García‐De La Torre, Orlando Gabriel Carballo, Minoru Satoh, Kyeong‐Hee Kim, Edward K. L. Chan, Jan Damoiseaux, Marcos López‐Hoyos, Xavier Bossuyt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisUniversität InnsbruckTurun Yliopistollinen KeskussairaalaMedizinische Universität InnsbruckTartu Ülikool
KeywordsAnti-nuclear antibodyMedicineMedical physicsQuality assuranceMedical laboratoryDelphi methodExternal quality assessmentPathologyImmunologyAntibodyComputer scienceAutoantibodyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) are important for the diagnosis of various autoimmune diseases. ANA are usually detected by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cells (HEp-2 IFA). There are many variables influencing HEp-2 IFA results, such as subjective visual reading, serum screening dilution, substrate manufacturing, microscope components and conjugate. Newer developments on ANA testing that offer novel features adopted by some clinical laboratories include automated computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems and solid phase assays (SPA). METHODS: A group of experts reviewed current literature and established recommendations on methodological aspects of ANA testing. This process was supported by a two round Delphi exercise. International expert groups that participated in this initiative included (i) the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "Autoimmunity Testing"; (ii) the European Autoimmune Standardization Initiative (EASI); and (iii) the International Consensus on ANA Patterns (ICAP). RESULTS: In total, 35 recommendations/statements related to (i) ANA testing and reporting by HEp-2 IFA; (ii) HEp-2 IFA methodological aspects including substrate/conjugate selection and the application of CAD systems; (iii) quality assurance; (iv) HEp-2 IFA validation/verification approaches and (v) SPA were formulated. Globally, 95% of all submitted scores in the final Delphi round were above 6 (moderately agree, agree or strongly agree) and 85% above 7 (agree and strongly agree), indicating strong international support for the proposed recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are an important step to achieve high quality ANA testing.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207