Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of a Reference Material Proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine to Evaluate Analytical Methods for the Determination of Plasma Lipoprotein(a)

Marcovina, Santica M, Albers, John J, Scanu, Angelo M, Kennedy, Hal, Giaculli, Federico, Berg, Kåre, Couderc, Rémy, Dati, Francesco, Rifai, Nader, Sakurabayashi, Ikunosuke, Tate, Jillian R, Steinmetz, Armin·2000·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: As part of the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Contract for the Standardization of Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] Measurements, a study was performed in collaboration with the IFCC Working Group for the Standardization of Lp(a) Assays. The aims of the study, performed with the participation of 16 manufacturers and 6 research laboratories, were to evaluate the IFCC proposed reference material (PRM) for its ability to transfer an accuracy-based value to the immunoassay calibrators and to assess concordance in results among different methods. Methods: Two different purified Lp(a) preparations with protein mass concentrations determined by amino acid analysis were used to calibrate the reference method. A Lp(a) value of 107 nmol/L was assigned to PRM. After uniformity of calibration was demonstrated in the 22 evaluated systems, Lp(a) was measured on 30 fresh-frozen sera covering a wide range of Lp(a) values and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] sizes. Results: The among-laboratory CVs for these samples (6–31%) were, in general, higher than those obtained for PRM (2.8%) and the quality-control samples (14%, 12%, and 9%, respectively), reflecting the broad range of apo(a) sizes in the 30 samples and the sensitivity of most methods to apo(a) size heterogeneity. Thus, although all of the assays were uniformly calibrated through the use of PRM, no uniformity in results was achieved for the isoform-sensitive methods. Conclusions: Linear regression analyses indicated that to various degrees, apo(a) size heterogeneity affects the outcome of the immunochemical methods used to measure Lp(a). We have also shown that the inaccuracy of Lp(a) values determined by methods sensitive to apo(a) size significantly affects the assessment of individual risk status for coronary artery disease.

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/46.12.1956

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Marcovina, S. M., Albers, J. J., Scanu, A. M., Kennedy, H., Giaculli, F., Berg, K., Couderc, R., Dati, F., Rifai, N., Sakurabayashi, I., Tate, J. R., & Steinmetz, A.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2000-12-01
Volume
46
Issue
12
Pages
1956-1967
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2111144965
Cited by
313
References
19
FWCI
4.91
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of a Reference Material Proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine to Evaluate Analytical Methods for the Determination of Plasma Lipoprotein(a). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/46.12.1956
The paper
Marcovina, S. M., Albers, J. J., Scanu, A. M., Kennedy, H., Giaculli, F., Berg, K., Couderc, R., Dati, F., Rifai, N., Sakurabayashi, I., Tate, J. R., & Steinmetz, A. (2000). Use of a Reference Material Proposed by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine to Evaluate Analytical Methods for the Determination of Plasma Lipoprotein(a). Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/46.12.1956

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.