Cited by 19Sexual Differentiation and DisordersAdrenal Hormones and DisordersMetabolism and Genetic Disorders

Application of principal component analysis to newborn screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia

Open access
Lasarev, Michael R, Bialk, Eric R, Allen, David B, Held, Patrice K·2020·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

PURPOSE: Newborn screening laboratories are challenged to develop reporting algorithms that accurately identify babies at increased risk for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (21OHD). Screening algorithms typically use cutoff values for a key steroid(s) and include considerations for covariates, such as gestational age or birth weight, but false-positive and false-negative results are still too frequent, preventing accurate assessments. Principal component analysis (PCA) is a statistical method that reduces high-dimensional data to a small number of components, capturing patterns of association that may be relevant to the outcome of interest. To our knowledge, PCA has not been evaluated in the newborn screening setting to determine whether it can improve the positive predictive value of 21OHD screening. METHODS: PCA was applied to a data set of 920 newborns with measured concentrations of 5 key steroids that are known to be perturbed in patients with 21OHD. A decision tree for the known outcomes (confirmed 21OHD cases and unaffected individuals) was created with 2 principal components as predictors. The effectiveness of the PCA-derived decision tree was compared with the current algorithm. RESULTS: PCA improved the positive predictive value of 21OHD screening from 20.0% to 66.7% in a retrospective study comparing the current algorithm to a tree-based algorithm using PCA-derived variables. The streamlined PCA-derived decision tree, comprising only 3 assessment points, greatly simplified the 21OHD reporting algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: This first report of PCA applied to newborn screening for 21OHD demonstrates enhanced detection of affected individuals within the unaffected population.

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 · 10.1210/clinem/dgaa371

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Some but not all laboratories have reported markedly superior results with steroid ratios, with one recent report claiming a positive predictive value of 71%.

    “Some (272,273) but not all (254) laboratories have reported markedly superior results with these approaches, with one recent report claiming a positive predictive value of 71% (270).”

    From Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management (2022) · cites this paper as [272]

    The cited paper reports a positive predictive value of 66.7% for its PCA-derived decision tree, not 71% (Distribution of PC6; page unavailable). It reports 20% for the existing screening algorithm. The 71% figure is the part of the citing sentence attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. El-Maouche D, Arlt W, Merke DD. Congenital adrenal hyper- plasia. Lancet. 2017;390:2194-2210.
  2. CLSI NBS03. Newborn Screening for Preterm, Low Birth Weight, and Sick Newborns. 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019:11-29.
  3. Gabler E. The price of being wrong. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 12 September 2016. https://projects.jsonline.com/ news/2016/12/11/the-price-of-being-wrong.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lasarev, M. R., Bialk, E. R., Allen, D. B., & Held, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Held, Patrice K
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2020-06-11
Volume
105
Issue
8
Pages
e2930-e2940
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W3034546614
Cited by
19
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Sexual Differentiation and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Metabolism and Genetic Disorders
Keywords
congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 21-hydroxylase deficiency, newborn screening, principal component analysis, positive predictive value, decision tree, false positives
MeSH terms
Adrenal Hyperplasia, Congenital, Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diagnostic Techniques, Endocrine, False Positive Reactions, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Reference Values, Retrospective Studies, Steroids, Biomarkers, Neonatal Screening, Principal Component Analysis

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