Discordant High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Concentrations in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, analytical errors and discordant results may occur, with recent publications providing an approach for investigating such occurrences (1–3). Early in the laboratory investigation of these clinical queries, testing the specific sample(s) with an alternate hs-cTn assay is recommended, and for cardiac troponin I (cTnI) there are several high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assays that have undergone rigorous analytical validation and interference testing (2, 3). Importantly, a significant concentration discrepancy between different hs-cTnI assays has helped to provide some local estimates of interferences/discordant results in the hospital setting (2, 3). Unfortunately, little is known about the prevalence of analytically discordant hs-cTnI results in the general population. To estimate this, hs-cTnI data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) with hs-cTnI concentrations from 3 different hs-cTnI assays was assessed (4). The NHANES data for hs-cTnI was obtained from participants (≥1 year of age) who consented for serum storage (1999 to 2004). The hs-cTnI concentrations were obtained from the Abbott ARCHITECT i2000SR, the Siemens Centaur XP, and the Ortho Vitros 3600 analyzers, with analytical performance previously published (4). There were 19 026 serum samples with a concentration reported from all 3 assays. For research purposes, hs-cTnI values were reported as low as 0 ng/L, below the limit of blank (LOB), which permitted analytical comparison and discordant investigations at the low end for all three assays.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".