Role of Antitroponin Antibodies and Macrotroponin in the Clinical Interpretation of Cardiac Troponin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac troponin is extensively used as a biomarker in modern medicine due to its diagnostic capability for myocardial injury, as well as its predictive and prognostic value for cardiac diseases. However, heterophile antibodies, antitroponin antibodies, and macrotroponin complexes can be observed both in seemingly healthy individuals and patients with cardiac diseases, potentially leading to false positive or disproportionate elevation of cTn (cardiac troponin) assay results and introducing discrepancies in clinical interpretations with impact on medical management. In this review article, we describe the possible mechanisms of cTn release and the sources of variations in the assessment of circulating cTn levels. We also explore the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying antitroponin antibody development and discuss the influence exerted by macrotroponin complexes on the results of immunoassays. Additionally, we explore approaches to detect these complexes by presenting various clinical scenarios encountered in routine clinical practice. Finally, unsolved questions about the development, prevalence, and clinical significance of cardiac autoantibodies are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".