Comparison of SIMOA and VEUS technologies for serum neurofilament light chain measurement in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The gold standard for serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) determination is the single molecule array (SIMOA), the use of which is limited by availability and cost. The VEUS method is a fully automated, user-friendly diagnostic system requiring no sample preparation, with high reported sensitivity, multiplexing capability, and rapid diagnostics. The aim of this study was to compare the SIMOA and VEUS methods for determining sNfL levels in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODOLOGY: A single-centre cross-sectional study was conducted at the MS Centre of University Hospital Ostrava. Patients were enrolled in the study from January 18 to January 31, 2024. Inclusion criteria were: 1) diagnosis of MS according to the revised 2017 McDonald criteria, 2) age ≥18 years, and 3) signed informed consent. The NF-light V2 diagnostic kit (SIMOA, Quanterix) and the Singleplex Neurology assay kit (VEUDx, EZDiatech) were used to determine sNfL concentrations. The two methods were compared by use of Spearman correlation, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: = 0.025, p = 0.866). Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated a systematic and proportional difference between the two methods. A significant disagreement between them was also confirmed by the Bland-Altman plots. On average, sNfL values measured by SIMOA were 3.56 ng/L (95 % CI 0.78 to 6.34) higher than those measured by VEUS. CONCLUSION: Our investigation uncovered noteworthy disparities between the SIMOA and VEUS techniques in determining sNfL levels. Specifically, the VEUS technique systematically produces lower estimates of sNFL levels. This substantial variance emphasizes the importance of carefully evaluating assay methods when quantifying sNfL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".