MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414740717 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.418

B-020 Evaluation of Hemolysis, Icterus, and Lipemia Interferences on Vitros XT3400 and Roche Cobas Pro c503 Chemistry Analyzers

2025· article· en· W4414740717 on OpenAlexaff
Fahed Elian, Andrea Kunst, Albert K.Y. Tsui, Josh Raizman, Miranda Brun

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemolysisAnalyteInterference (communication)BilirubinSodiumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hemolysis, icterus, and lipemia (HIL) are common sources of interference, potentially introducing bias and affecting the accuracy of patient results. Studies performed by manufacturers to establish HIL thresholds for interference vary across platforms and data is often limited. This study evaluates the relationship between interferent concentrations and HIL indices, and the impact of HIL interference on chemistry analytes measured on Ortho Vitros and Roche Cobas. Methods CLSI EP07-ED:2018 guidelines on evaluation of HIL interference were followed. Pooled patient plasma (N=3 per analyte) was spiked with saline (control) or increasing concentrations of hemolysate, bilirubin, or intralipid and analyzed in triplicate for 18 chemistry analytes on Ortho Vitros XT3400 (Vitros) and Roche Cobas Pro c503 (Roche) analyzers. A subset of analytes were evaluated across a broad concentration range while others were selected within the reference interval. Differences between spiked and control samples were calculated to determine interference bias. Results were compared to locally established allowable total errors (ATE) and compared to manufacturer-provided interference thresholds. Results Instrument and analyte specific differences for HIL were identified. ALP was more resistant to hemolysis on Roche than on Vitros. On Vitros, ALP bias was concentration-dependent, with increasing sensitivity to interference from hemoglobin at low ALP concentration. Total bilirubin and albumin were sensitive to hemolysis interference on Vitros, but resistant to hemolysis on Roche. Conversely, sodium was more resistant to hemolysis on Vitros but showed interference on Roche. For lipemia, Vitros showed greater resistance to interference for ALT, AST, chloride, and sodium compared to Roche. For icterus, Vitros demonstrated resistance to interference for all analytes assayed, where Roche showed concentration-dependent interference for creatinine, with increased sensitivity at lower concentrations of creatinine. Conclusion Our study showed differences in HIL interference between Roche and Vitros, with Vitros showing greater resistance, particularly to lipemia and icterus. Interference varied in a concentration-dependent manner, supporting the use of concentration-specific thresholds, especially for ALT, ALP, and AST. For many analytes on both analyzers, interference thresholds deviated from manufacturer recommendations, with higher-than-expected hemolysis thresholds and lower lipemia thresholds. These findings highlight the need for laboratories to verify HIL interference and establish optimal, analyzer-specific thresholds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

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 topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207