Home › Research › Biomarkers
Assessment of the Concordance and Diagnostic Accuracy Between Elecsys and Lumipulse Fully Automated Platforms and Innotest
Dakterzada F, López-Ortega R, Arias A, Riba-Llena I, Ruiz-Julián M, Huerto R, Tahan N, Piñol-Ripoll G.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2021-03-04
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Manual ELISA assays are the most commonly used methods for quantification of biomarkers; however, they often show inter- and intra-laboratory variability that limits their wide use. Here, we compared the Innotest ELISA method with two fully automated platforms (Lumipulse and Elecsys) to determine whether these new methods can provide effective substitutes for ELISA assays. We included 149 patients with AD ( n = 34), MCI ( n = 94) and non-AD dementias ( n = 21). Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau were quantified using the ELISA method (Innotest, Fujirebio Europe), CLEIA method on a Lumipulse G600II (Fujirebio Diagnostics), and ECLIA method on a Cobas e 601 (Roche Diagnostics) instrument. We found a high correlation between the three methods, although there were systematic differences between biomarker values measured by each method. Both Lumipulse and Elecsys methods were highly concordant with clinical diagnoses, and the combination of Lumipulse Aβ42 and P-tau had the highest discriminating power (AUC 0.915, 95% CI 0.822-1.000). We also assessed the agreement of AT(N) classification for each method with AD diagnosis. Although differences were not significant, the use of Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio instead of Aβ42 alone in AT(N) classification enhanced the diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.798, 95% CI 0.649-0.947 vs. AUC 0.778, 95% CI 0.617-0.939). We determined the cut-offs for the Lumipulse and Elecsys assays based on the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio ± status as a marker of amyloid pathology, and these cut-offs were consistent with those recommended by manufacturers, which had been determined based on visual amyloid PET imaging or diagnostic accuracy. Finally, the biomarker ratios (P-tau/Aβ42 and T-tau/Aβ42) were more consistent with the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio for both Lumipulse and Elecsys methods, and Elecsys P-tau/Aβ42 had the highest consistency with amyloid pathology (AUC 0.994, 95% CI 0.986-1.000 and OPA 96.4%) at the ≥0.024 cut-off. The Lumipulse and Elecsys cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD assays showed high analytical and clinical performances. As both automated platforms were standardized for reference samples, their use is recommended for the measurement of CSF AD biomarkers compared with unstandardized manual methods, such as Innotest ELISA, that have demonstrated a high inter and intra-laboratory variability.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dakterzada, F., López-Ortega, R., Arias, A., Riba-Llena, I., Ruiz-Julián, M., Huerto, R., et al. (2021). Assessment of the Concordance and Diagnostic Accuracy Between Elecsys and Lumipulse Fully Automated Platforms and Innotest. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.604119
Vancouver
Dakterzada F, López-Ortega R, Arias A, Riba-Llena I, Ruiz-Julián M, Huerto R, et al. Assessment of the Concordance and Diagnostic Accuracy Between Elecsys and Lumipulse Fully Automated Platforms and Innotest. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2021. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.604119. PMID: 33746733.
BibTeX
@article{dakterzada2021-33746733,
author = {Dakterzada, F. and López-Ortega, R. and Arias, A. and Riba-Llena, I. and Ruiz-Julián, M. and Huerto, R. and Tahan, N. and Piñol-Ripoll, G.},
title = {{Assessment of the Concordance and Diagnostic Accuracy Between Elecsys and Lumipulse Fully Automated Platforms and Innotest}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2021.604119},
pmid = {33746733},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.604119}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We found a high correlation between the three methods, although there were systematic differences between biomarker values measured by each method.
- Although differences were not significant, the use of Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio instead of Aβ42 alone in AT(N) classification enhanced the diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.798, 95% CI 0.649-0.947 vs.
- As both automated platforms were standardized for reference samples, their use is recommended for the measurement of CSF AD biomarkers compared with unstandardized manual methods, such as Innotest ELISA, that have demonstrated a high inter and intra-laboratory variability.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants34
- Effect sizeAUC 0.915; AUC 0.798; AUC 0.778
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 34 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33746733) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “concordance”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “concordance”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.