MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414740646 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.746

B-361 Method Validation of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) and a-Fetoprotein (AFP) in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)

2025· article· en· W4414740646 on OpenAlexaff
Yinghua Qiu, Andrew A. Li, Abisha Ganeshamoorthy, Vathany Kulasingam, Davor Brinc

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman chorionic gonadotropinCerebrospinal fluidYolk sacGonadotropinGerm cell tumorsCerebral Spinal FluidSerum concentration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Intracranial germ cell tumors (GCTs), accounting for 2%–3% of pediatric brain tumors, are diagnostically challenging. GCTs are classified into germinomas and nongerminomatous germ-cell tumors (NGGCTs), which include yolk sac tumors, choriocarcinomas, and mixed tumors. Neuroimaging alone often cannot differentiate GCTs from other tumors, making biomarkers like a-fetoprotein (AFP) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) crucial for diagnosis. Elevated AFP indicates yolk sac tumors, while increased hCG suggests choriocarcinomas. Measuring these markers in CSF is more reliable than in serum and aids in monitoring treatment response and detecting recurrence. Matrix effects can impact test results when alternative sample types are used; therefore, validation is essential before clinical implementation. In this study, we validated AFP and hCG assays on the Abbott Alinity I platform. Methods To prepare the samples, clear and colorless CSF samples were initially tested to confirm the absence of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Subsequently, serum samples with high concentrations of AFP and hCG were spiked into the CSF to create a range of concentrations. Linearity/Recovery Linearity was initially evaluated by testing singlet CSF samples with varying AFP and hCG concentrations across the serum AMR, which spans 0.1 to 2000 µg/L for AFP and 1.2 to 5000 IU/L for hCG, to determine the proposed linearity range. The linearity range was then confirmed by testing newly prepared samples within the proposed range in duplicate or triplicate. Precision Within-day imprecision was assessed by measuring two pools 10 times in a single day at target concentrations of 25, 500, and 1500 µg/L for AFP and 25, 1000, and 4000 IU/L for hCG. Day-to-day imprecision was evaluated by assaying individual aliquots four times daily over five days at the same target concentrations. Limit of quantitation LOQ was defined as the lowest concentration measured with a coefficient of variation (CV) <20% and total error <20%. Samples were assayed eight times per day over five days. Four CSF specimens containing AFP and hCG at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 µg/L (0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0) and 1.2 to 3 IU/L (1.2, 1.5, 2, 3), respectively, were analyzed to determine the LOQ. Sample Stability Sample stability was evaluated at 25°C (48 hours) and 4°C (12 days) to assess potential changes in analyte concentration over time. Stability was considered acceptable if the variation in concentration remained within 15% of the original test result. Carryover The carryover is assessed by comparing the response of a high-concentration sample (approximately 80% of the ULOQ) following a CSF blank. Results The method showed a linear range of 0.1–2000 µg/L for AFP and 2–5000 IU/L for hCG in CSF, with no significant matrix effect. Precision was <5% CV, and CSF samples remained stable for 48 hours at 25°C and 12 days at 2–8°C. LOQ was 0.1 µg/L for AFP and 2 IU/L for hCG, with no significant carryover. Conclusions: The Abbott Alinity I AFP and hCG assays accurately quantify AFP and hCG in CSF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207