MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414740356 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.331

A-346 Exploring Clinical Decision Making Cutoffs for the Siemens Serum HCG Assays in Pregnancy

2025· article· en· W4414740356 on OpenAlexaffabout
Khashayar Hanjani, Li Wang, Junyan Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman chorionic gonadotropinPregnancyChartPregnancy testCutoffTrophoblastRetrospective cohort studyGonadotropin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) is primarily produced by the trophoblast cells early after embryo implantation, making it ideal for assessing early pregnancy status. However, low levels of HCG can be secreted from the pituitary gland in non-pregnant individuals which can make interpretation challenging. In two quaternary centres in British Columbia, Canada, the total serum HCG assay on the Siemen’s Atellica platform is used. A cutoff of =2.0 IU/L, corresponding to the limit of detection (LOD), was used when the test was implemented. However, borderline elevated HCG results were noted by clinical teams, particularly in the pediatric population, raising concerns about false positives. This study explored the feasibility of using higher HCG cutoffs in assessing pregnancy status in female patients of child-bearing age, between the ages of 10 and 50. Methods A retrospective study combining laboratory data analysis and chart review was performed. From September 13, 2023 to November 13, 2024, total HCG results on the Atellica platform at two centers (one pediatric) were pulled via laboratory information systems. Results of intact HCG assays from four hospitals using the Siemens Dimensions EXL platform were also pulled. For both assays, data was filtered to select test results between 3IU/L and 6IU/L (borderline). Patients with these results were investigated by assessing whether a repeat test was done within a 6-week period. Chart review was then carried if on repeat testing there was an increase in HCG beyond 6 IU/L which could be consistent with pregnancy. Additionally, given increased concern for the pediatric population, chart review was conducted for borderline results from our pediatric centre. Results A total of 22335 HCG tests were identified, 2% of which were in the borderline range. Of these, 111 had a follow-up test within 6 weeks. Only 7 individuals had a value more than 6IU/L on repeat. On chart review, 3 pregnancies were identified but all likely had implantation occur between the two tests, meaning that the initial borderline value was still reflective of non-pregnant status. Of note, the proportion of borderline HCG values was highest at the extremes of age, with 4.9% of values in the 10-to-15-year range and 8.4% in the 45-to-50-year range. In the subset analysis from our pediatric center, a total of 614 HCG tests were identified and 27 cases with borderline results were reviewed, none of which represented pregnancy. Repeat testing rate was 41%, with some cases reflecting anxiety among both the children, families, and ordering physicians in light of a possible positive result. Conclusion Using the LOD as the cutoff for determination pregnancy status in the Atellica and Dimensions platforms produces false positive results owing to borderline values. This phenomenon was more pronounced around puberty, with chart review revealing adverse emotional impacts and unnecessary healthcare utilization. Meanwhile, our analysis revealed that treating these borderline values as negative results would not have resulted in any pregnancies being missed. These findings support adoption of a higher threshold detection of HCG though further studies are needed to define this threshold.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.480
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.480
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.760
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.107 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207