国际标准期刊号: 2161-0460

阿尔茨海默病和帕金森病杂志

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • 打开 J 门
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 学术钥匙
  • 期刊目录
  • 中国知网(CNKI)
  • 电子期刊图书馆
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • SWB 在线目录
  • 虚拟生物学图书馆 (vifabio)
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Neurochemical Dementia Diagnostics - Interlaboratory Variation of Analysis, Reference Ranges and Interpretations

Hansotto Reiber, Peter Lange and Inga Zerr

Purpose: Dementia marker analysis requests the control of analytical reliability. Method: 49 laboratories from nine European countries and USA participate in the first external quality assessment system [EQAS] for dementia marker analysis. Stabilized CSF samples are analyzed with a reference range-related evaluation and a differential diagnostic interpretation of combined parameters [total Tau protein, phospho Tau protein and Amyloid-ß-peptide Aß1-42]. Results: A) The large inter-laboratory variation is characterized by a survey-example with values in the decision range: the highest value was 10-fold higher than the lowest for Aß42 [69-771 pg/ml], 4-fold higher for Tau [315-1292 pg/ml and twofold for pTau[53-83 pg/ml]. With a success range of median ± 25% the fraction of outliers were up to 31% [Aß42] or 13-15% [Tau] and 3-11% for pTau in the N= 6 surveys. B) For evaluation [normal /pathological/border line] participants used a huge range of individual cut-off values: Tau [150-540, median 450 pg/ml], pTau [35-85, median 61 pg/ml] and Aß1-42 [205-600, median 500 pg/ml] with serious consequences for the differential diagnosis. C) In case of a sample with normal median values [e.g. Tau = 381 pg/ml and Aß= 748 pg/ml] 45% of participants regarded their values as pathological with a stunning interpretation of combined Tau and Aß1-42 data: 29% of the participants found this data combination compatible with an Alzheimer’s disease, 29% reported this as a normal sample, and 42 % regarded an interpretation as not possible. Conclusions: Up to 31% outliers are a source of serious diagnostic errors. The unacceptable large variation of the laboratory own cut-off values leads to false negative and false positive diagnostic interpretations. This questions the practical relevance of dementia marker analysis. The calculation of mathematical formulas or ratios is not improving the discriminative sensitivity due to the error propagation in mathematical functions.

免责声明: 此摘要通过人工智能工具翻译,尚未经过审核或验证。