Harmonization of four biomarkers across nine nationally representative studies of older persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A growing number of international population surveys have included measurement of biomarkers, but differ in the type of specimens collected, sample processing procedures, shipment protocols, and laboratory assay platforms. The purpose of this study is to harmonize biomarker data from nine nationally representative studies of people 50 years of age and over by adjusting for assay platforms and type of specimens for total cholesterol (total-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: Sets of 24 identical serum, plasma, whole blood, and dried blood spot harmonization samples with known analyte levels were generated at a reference laboratory, shipped at -80°C to the respective study laboratories, and subsequently assayed following the study laboratory's protocol. Both original and harmonized study data were used to calculate mean values and at-risk prevalence. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients between the biomarker values of the harmonization samples obtained by the study laboratories and the reference laboratory were 0.99 or above for all analytes and laboratories, indicating the high quality of assays at all laboratories. However, using the harmonized data from each study, there were significant differences in the mean values and country ranking of the prevalence of at-risk levels of these four biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: While the biomarker data from the different study laboratories were highly correlated, indicating very high correlation of rank order of specimens, absolute values did vary significantly. This can have a major impact on assessment of international differences in estimates of risks for chronic morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".