12208 Impact Of Transition From The IDS-iSYS To The Roche Elecsys® Immunoassays On A Clinical Study Assessing Strict IGF-1 Control (I-Con) In Patients With Acromegaly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disclosure: C.L. Chik: Advisory Board Member; Self; Ipsen, Novo Nordisk, Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Grant Recipient; Self; Pfizer, Inc.. C. Gandhi: None. J.A. Rivera: None. M. Denis: None. S. Van Uum: Advisory Board Member; Self; Ipsen, Pfizer, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Spruce. S.Z. Ezzat: Advisory Board Member; Self; Bayer, Inc., Eli Lilly & Company, Ipsen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Eisai. D.T. Holmes: Other; Self; Roche Diagnostics. Objective: IGF-1 measurements were transitioned from the IDS-iSYS to the Roche Elecsys® immunoassays by the central laboratory during our clinical study that assessed strict IGF-1 control (I-Con) and quality-of-life scores in patients with acromegaly. Given the known variabilities of the IGF-1 measurements and the critical nature of IGF-1 results to the validity of the study, a retrospective analysis of the stored samples was completed using both methods. Methods: IGF-1 was measured in available stored samples (n=38) using IDS-iSYS at one of the hospital laboratories and the Roche Elecsys® at the central laboratory. In addition, the end-of-study (EOS) IGF-1 results were compared with IGF-1 measurements during the study (DTS) at the central and the local laboratory of the two sites with more than 10 stored samples, with one site using IDS-iSYS and the second site using IGF-1-RIACT. Bland-Altman plot, regression analysis and intra-class correlation were used to assess the reliability of the IGF-1 measurements. Results: Ten acromegaly patients from four sites in Canada participated in the clinical study. After six months of addition of pegvisomant to a somatostatin analog (n=6) or dose escalation of pegvisomant (n=4), IGF-1 decreased from 258.5 ± 59.2 µg/L [121.8 ± 14.4 % upper limit of normal (%ULN)] to 184.1 ± 41.1 µg/L (86.7 ± 20.0 %ULN) (p=0.001). Two to five stored samples were available from the 10 patients (n=38) and the mean difference of IGF-1 between the IDS-iSYS and Roche Elecsys® was 10.8 µg/L or 4.6% when expressed as %ULN, with a trend to a higher value at the central laboratory. Linear regression of the difference between IGF-1 measurements against their average showed a slope of 0.1 (p<0.001) or 0.15 (p=0.01) when expressed as %ULN. Intra-class correlations between the central laboratory DTS and EOS measurements were compared with those by the local laboratory. In the site that used IDS-iSYS for IGF-1 measurements, the intra-class correlations with the Roche Elecsys® was 0.99 (n=11) for DTS measurements and 0.98 (n=13) for EOS measurements. In the second site that used IGF-1-RIACT, the intra-class correlations with the IDS-iSYS was 0.38 (n=13) for DTS results, and with the Roche Elecsys® was 0.64 (n=15) for EOS results. Conclusion: Although there were variabilities between the IDS-iSYS and the Roche Elecsys® IGF-1 measurements, the small difference between the two IGF-1 assays confirmed that the transition from the IDS-iSYS to the Roche Elecsys® by the central laboratory had little impact on the IGF-1 results of our study. Using intra-class correlations to assess reliability of the IGF-1 measurements, the reliability of the IGF-1 results appeared dependent on the IGF-1 method used in the individual site. Presentation: 6/2/2024
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".