Clinical laboratories perform a wide range of tests that are used by healthcare professionals to guide medical decision making. Use of automated analyzers in the clinical laboratory can improve patient care by not only reducing the turn-around-time (TAT) of results but also improving accuracy of the reported results by reducing human error. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of a new automated laboratory instrument, the Atellica® CI Analyzer, Model 1900, over a 3-month period in a European laboratory setting.
Analytical performance of 17 analytes (13 chemistry and four immunochemistry) was assessed by evaluating repeatability and within-laboratory precision using anonymized remnant serum samples. Method comparison studies were performed on the Atellica CI Analyzer and the Roche cobas® 6000.
Excellent precision was observed with coefficients of variation (CVs) less than 2 % for repeatability and less than 3 % within-laboratory imprecision for most analytes. Comparison of select assays with the cobas 6000 system resulted in correlation coefficients ranging from 0.980 to 1.000.
This is the first reported evaluation of the Atellica CI Analyzer in a clinical laboratory setting. The strong analytical performance of the Atellica CI Analyzer demonstrates that this instrument is suitable for routine clinical use.
Robust immunoassays for quantification of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific biomarkers are required for routine diagnostics. We report analytical performance characteristics of four new chemiluminescence immunoassays (ChLIA, EUROIMMUN) running on closed, fully automated random-access instruments for quantification of Aβ1-40, Aβ1-42, tTau, and pTau(181) in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
ChLIAs were validated according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Optimal cut-offs for biomarkers and biomarker ratios were determined using samples from 219 AD patients and 220 patients with AD-related symptoms. For performance comparison, biomarker concentrations were measured in 110 diagnostic leftover samples using the ChLIAs and established Lumipulse G assays (Fujirebio).
All ChLIAs met CLSI criteria. Overall agreement between assays was 89.0%–97.3 % with highly correlating results (Pearson's correlation coefficients: 0.82–0.99). Passing-Bablok regression analysis revealed systematic differences.
EUROIMMUN ChLIAs showed good analytical performances and represent new valuable tools for diagnostics of AD.
We aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of second-trimester maternal serum screening in China, and to compare if there are differences in sigma levels across different methods and months.
A retrospective study was conducted to assess the analytical quality levels of laboratories by calculating the Sigma metrics with prenatal screening biomarkers: AFP, Total β-hCG, free β-hCG, uE3. Data from 591 laboratories were selected. Sigma metrics were computed using the formula: Sigma metrics(σ) = (%TEa - |%Bias|)/%CV. The Friedman test and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare differences across various methods and different months. The Hodges–Lehmann was used for determining 95 % confidence intervals of pseudo-medians.
Only uE3 showed significant monthly variations in sigma calculations. However, around 8 % of laboratories across all four analytes demonstrated sigma levels both above 6 and below 3 in different months. Laboratories utilizing time-resolved fluorescence methods significantly outperformed those using chemiluminescence in sigma level. For AFP, the pseudo-median difference between these methods lies within a 95 % confidence interval of (−3.22, −1.93), while for uE3, it is at (−2.30, −1.40). Notably, the median sigma levels for all analytes reached the 4-sigma threshold, with free β-hCG even attaining the 6-sigma level.
With current standards, China's second-trimester maternal serum screening is of relatively high analytical quality, and variations in sigma levels exist across different months and methods.