Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical utility of the soluble transferrin receptor and comparison with serum ferritin in several populations

Mast, Alan E, Blinder, Morey A, Gronowski, Ann M, Chumley, Cara, Scott, Mitchell G·1998·Clinical Chemistry
DOI 10.1093/clinchem/44.1.45
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) and ferritin concentrations were measured in a variety of clinical settings to compare the ability of these two tests to identify iron deficiency. Among 62 anemic patients who either had a bone marrow aspirate performed or had a documented response to iron therapy, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of sTfR (at a diagnostic cutoff of >2.8 mg/L) were 92% and 84%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 42% in this population. Ferritin (≤12 μg/L) had a sensitivity of 25% and a specificity of 98%. However, the sensitivity and specificity of ferritin could be improved to 92% and 98%, respectively, by using a diagnostic cutoff value of ≤30 μg/L, resulting in a positive predictive value of 92%. Ferritin and sTfR were also measured in 267 outpatient samples and 112 medical students. In the outpatient group, the two tests agreed in 73% of the samples; however, 25% of the samples had ferritin values >12 μg/L and increased sTfR. Among the medical students, there was 91% agreement between the two tests, but 7% of the samples had ferritin ≤12 μg/L and normal sTfR. Together, these data suggest that measurement of sTfR does not provide sufficient additional information to ferritin to warrant routine use. However, sTfR may be useful as an adjunct in the evaluation of anemic patients, whose ferritin values may be increased as the result of an acute-phase reaction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clinchem/44.1.45

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mast, A. E., Blinder, M. A., Gronowski, A. M., Chumley, C., & Scott, M. G.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1998-01-01
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
45-51
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
DOI
10.1093/clinchem/44.1.45
OpenAlex
W1930624773
Cited by
481
References
2
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.