Biases and consistency of different assay methods for neurological biomarkers using Quanterix single-molecule-array technology: A comparative study of the secondary analysis method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breakthrough technologies such as the Single molecule array (Simoa) technology developed by Quanterix provide higher sensitivity, enabling measurement of central nervous system-abundant proteins in blood. Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary protein (GFAP) are two proteins that have attracted considerable attention as biomarkers for many neurological conditions. Due to their performance and utility, these biomarkers are available in different Quanterix assays, including single-plex and multi-plex assay setups. Limited research has been conducted to evaluate how modifications in assay formulations may impact overall analytical performance and comparability. We recently established reference intervals (RI) for plasma NfL and GFAP measured in normative samples from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) using the Quanterix Neurology 4-Plex E (N4PE) Advantage. The aim of the present study was to perform method comparisons to assess how well CHMS RIs generated on the N4PE assay translate to other assay formulations to facilitate generalizability and uptake. Seven independent comparisons were conducted, each using a total of 80 plasma samples from the CHMS. These samples were divided (n=40 each) based on the two N4PE lots previously used to generate RIs. The following Quanterix assay formulations were evaluated against the N4PE anchor assay: NfL Advantage PLUS (NfL+), GFAP Advantage PLUS (GFAP+), Neurology 2-Plex B Advantage (N2PB), Neurology 2-Plex B Advantage PLUS (N2PB+), Neurology 4-Plex B Advantage (N4PB), Neurology 4-Plex D PLUS (N4PD+), and Neurology 4-Plex E PLUS (N4PE+). Plasma biomarker concentrations were measured using the Quanterix Simoa HD-X analyzer, with assays run as per the manufacturer's specifications. Assay comparisons were conducted using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis to assess bias between assays. Both NfL and GFAP concentrations were tightly correlated between assay formulations with rho > 0.9 and a P-value < 0.0001 for all assay crosses. However, the bias between formulations ranged from 0.5% to 42.1%, indicating that data correction may be required to harmonize data generated from different assay formulations. In summary, this study emphasizes the importance of data correction when using different assay methods to ensure data comparability across studies. Additionally, the study results support the applicability of RIs and suggest that when using RIs, corrections should be made based on the assay-specific bias. Future studies should further expand the sample range, particularly in high-concentration conditions such as acute neurological injury, to comprehensively evaluate the performance of different assay formulations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".