Quality Assurance for Multiplex Quantitative Clinical Chemistry Proteomics in Large Clinical Trials
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, ISSN: 2475-7241, Vol: 9, Issue: 6, Page: 949-963
2024
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
Background: To evaluate the clinical performance and effectiveness of a multiplex apolipoprotein panel in the context of cardiovascular precision diagnostics, clinical samples of patients with recent acute coronary syndrome in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial were measured by quantitative clinical chemistry proteomics (qCCP). The ISO15189-accredited laboratory setting, including the total testing process (TTP), served as a foundation for this study. Consequently, tailored quality assurance measures needed to be designed and implemented to suit the demands of a multiplex LC-MS/MS test. Methods: Nine serum apolipoproteins were measured in 23 376 samples with a laboratory-developed multiplex apolipoprotein test on 4 Agilent 6495 LC-MS/MS systems. A fit-for-purpose process was designed with tailored additions enhancing the accredited laboratory infrastructure and the TTP. Quality assurance was organized in 3 steps: system suitability testing (SST), internal quality control (IQC) evaluation with adjusted Westgard rules to fit a multiplex test, and interpeptide agreement analysis. Data was semi-automatically evaluated with a custom R script. Results: LC-MS/MS analyses were performed with the following between-run CVs: for apolipoprotein (Apo) (a) 6.2%, Apo A-I 2.3%, Apo A-II 2.1%, Apo A-IV 2.9%, Apo B 1.9%, Apo C-I 3.3%, Apo C-II 3.3%, Apo C-III 2.7%, and for Apo E 3.3% and an average interpeptide agreement Pearson r of 0.981. Conclusions: This is the first study of its kind in which qCCP was performed at this scale. This research successfully demonstrates the feasibility of high-throughput LC-MS/MS applications in large clinical trials.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85208515725&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae092; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01663402; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39239905; https://academic.oup.com/jalm/article/9/6/949/7750195; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae092
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know