Cited by 71Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHormonal and reproductive studiesScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Validation of 5 routine assays for serum free testosterone with a candidate reference measurement procedure based on ultrafiltration and isotope dilution–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Van Uytfanghe, K., Stöckl, D., Kaufman, J.M., Fiers, T., De Leenheer, A., Thienpont, L.M.·2005·Clinical Biochemistry

Abstract

Background/method The analytical validity of free testosterone (FTe) analog immunoassays is subject to much controversy. We revisited the validation of 4 analog assays and 1 FTe calculation procedure with a metrologically traceable reference measurement procedure (RMP) based on ultrafiltration and isotope dilution-mass spectrometry for direct measurement of Te in the ultrafiltrate. To this end, we performed split-sample measurements of 40 male sera. Results Deming regression showed that 3 of the immunoassays had moderate to good correlation (0.8474 Conclusions The study demonstrated substantial differences in analytical quality of FTe assays; however, the results suggested that after extending the validation with a larger variety of samples, recalibration of some analog assays might be worth further investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2004.12.001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Uytfanghe, K., Stöckl, D., Kaufman, J. M., Fiers, T., De Leenheer, A., & Thienpont, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
Thienpont, L.M.
Venue
Clinical Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
253-261
ISSN
0009-9120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966986320
Cited by
71
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Multiple Sclerosis Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hormonal and reproductive studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
free testosterone, immunoassay validation, reference measurement procedure, ultrafiltration, isotope dilution mass spectrometry, testosterone measurement, matrix effects, measurement traceability
MeSH terms
Adult, Calibration, Carbon Isotopes, Humans, Hypogonadism, Immunoassay, Indicator Dilution Techniques, Male, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Sensitivity and Specificity, Testosterone, Ultrafiltration, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review