scholarly journals refineR: A Novel Algorithm for Reference Interval Estimation from Real-World Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatjana Ammer ◽  
André Schützenmeister ◽  
Hans-Ulrich Prokosch ◽  
Manfred Rauh ◽  
Christopher M. Rank ◽  
...  

AbstractReference intervals are essential for the interpretation of laboratory test results in medicine. We propose a novel indirect approach to estimate reference intervals from real-world data as an alternative to direct methods, which require samples from healthy individuals. The presented refineR algorithm separates the non-pathological distribution from the pathological distribution of observed test results using an inverse approach and identifies the model that best explains the non-pathological distribution. To evaluate its performance, we simulated test results from six common laboratory analytes with a varying location and fraction of pathological test results. Estimated reference intervals were compared to the ground truth, an alternative indirect method (kosmic), and the direct method (N = 120 and N = 400 samples). Overall, refineR achieved the lowest mean percentage error of all methods (2.77%). Analyzing the amount of reference intervals within ± 1 total error deviation from the ground truth, refineR (82.5%) was inferior to the direct method with N = 400 samples (90.1%), but outperformed kosmic (70.8%) and the direct method with N = 120 (67.4%). Additionally, reference intervals estimated from pediatric data were comparable to published direct method studies. In conclusion, the refineR algorithm enables precise estimation of reference intervals from real-world data and represents a viable complement to the direct method.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond A. Harvey ◽  
Jeremy A. Rassen ◽  
Carly A. Kabelac ◽  
Wendy Turenne ◽  
Sandy Leonard ◽  
...  

AbstractImportanceThere is limited evidence regarding whether the presence of serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a decreased risk of future infection. Understanding susceptibility to infection and the role of immune memory is important for identifying at-risk populations and could have implications for vaccine deployment.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate subsequent evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among individuals who are antibody-positive compared with those who are antibody-negative, using real-world data.DesignThis was an observational descriptive cohort study.ParticipantsThe study utilized a national sample to create cohorts from a de-identified dataset composed of commercial laboratory test results, open and closed medical and pharmacy claims, electronic health records, hospital billing (chargemaster) data, and payer enrollment files from the United States. Patients were indexed as antibody-positive or antibody-negative according to their first SARS-CoV-2 antibody test recorded in the database. Patients with more than 1 antibody test on the index date where results were discordant were excluded.Main Outcomes/MeasuresPrimary endpoints were index antibody test results and post-index diagnostic NAAT results, with infection defined as a positive diagnostic test post-index, as measured in 30-day intervals (0-30, 31-60, 61-90, >90 days). Additional measures included demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics at the time of the index antibody test, such as recorded signs and symptoms or prior evidence of COVID-19 (diagnoses or NAAT+) and recorded comorbidities.ResultsWe included 3,257,478 unique patients with an index antibody test. Of these, 2,876,773 (88.3%) had a negative index antibody result, 378,606 (11.6%) had a positive index antibody result, and 2,099 (0.1%) had an inconclusive index antibody result. Patients with a negative antibody test were somewhat older at index than those with a positive result (mean of 48 versus 44 years). A fraction (18.4%) of individuals who were initially seropositive converted to seronegative over the follow up period. During the follow-up periods, the ratio (CI) of positive NAAT results among individuals who had a positive antibody test at index versus those with a negative antibody test at index was 2.85 (2.73 - 2.97) at 0-30 days, 0.67 (0.6 - 0.74) at 31-60 days, 0.29 (0.24 - 0.35) at 61-90 days), and 0.10 (0.05 - 0.19) at >90 days.ConclusionsPatients who display positive antibody tests are initially more likely to have a positive NAAT, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but over time become markedly less likely to have a positive NAAT. This result suggests seropositivity using commercially available assays is associated with protection from infection. The duration of protection is unknown and may wane over time; this parameter will need to be addressed in a study with extended duration of follow up.Key PointsQuestionCan real-world data be used to evaluate the comparative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for individuals who are antibody-positive versus antibody-negative?FindingOf patients indexed on a positive antibody test, 10 of 3,226 with a NAAT (0.3%) had evidence of a positive NAAT > 90 days after index, compared with 491 of 16,157 (3.0%) indexed on a negative antibody test.MeaningIndividuals who are seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 based on commercial assays may be at decreased future risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-138
Author(s):  
Sollip Kim ◽  
Jeonghyun Chang ◽  
Soo-Kyung Kim ◽  
Sholhui Park ◽  
Jungwon Huh ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesTo maintain the consistency of laboratory test results, between-reagent lot variation should be verified before using new reagent lots in clinical laboratory. Although the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) document EP26-A deals with this issue, evaluation of reagent lot-to-lot difference is challenging in reality. We aim to investigate a practical way for determining between-reagent lot variation using real-world data in clinical chemistry.MethodsThe CLSI EP26-A protocol was applied to 83 chemistry tests in three clinical labs. Three criteria were used to define the critical difference (CD) of each test as follows: reference change value and total allowable error, which are based on biological variation, and acceptable limits by external quality assurance agencies. The sample size and rejection limits that could detect CD between-reagent lots were determined.ResultsFor more than half of chemistry tests, reagent lot-to-lot differences could be evaluated using only one patient sample per decision level. In many cases, the rejection limit that could detect reagent lot-to-lot difference with ≥90% probability was 0.6 times CD. However, the sample size and rejection limits vary depending on how the CD is defined. In some cases, impractical sample size or rejection limits were obtained. In some cases, information on sample size and rejection limit that met intended statistical power was not found in EP26-A.ConclusionsThe CLSI EP26-A did not provide all necessary answers. Alternative practical approaches are suggested when CLSI EP26-A does not provide guidance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 219
Author(s):  
Roberto Salvatori ◽  
Olga Gambetti ◽  
Whitney Woodmansee ◽  
David Cox ◽  
Beloo Mirakhur ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jersy Cardenas ◽  
Gomez Nancy Sanchez ◽  
Sierra Poyatos Roberto Miguel ◽  
Luca Bogdana Luiza ◽  
Mostoles Naiara Modroño ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 209-OR
Author(s):  
SHWETA GOPALAKRISHNAN ◽  
PRATIK AGRAWAL ◽  
MICHAEL STONE ◽  
CATHERINE FOGEL ◽  
SCOTT W. LEE

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document