Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of Imprecision for Cardiac Troponin Assays at Low-Range Concentrations

Panteghini, Mauro, Pagani, Franca, Yeo, Kiang-Teck J, Apple, Fred S, Christenson, Robert H, Dati, Francesco, Mair, Johannes, Ravkilde, Jan, Wu, Alan H B, the Committee on Standardization of Markers of Cardiac Damage of the IFCC·2004·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: The European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) has recommended that an increased cardiac troponin should be defined as a measurement above the 99th percentile value of the reference group. A total imprecision (CV) at the decision limit of ≤10% is recommended. However, peer-reviewed data on assay imprecision are lacking. The purpose of this study was to construct the clinically relevant imprecision profiles for each of the commercially available cardiac troponin assays. Pools of human sera containing cardiac troponin concentrations around the MI decision limit were assessed to identify the lowest concentration associated with a 10% CV. Methods: Eight serum pools targeting different concentrations of cardiac troponin (I and T) were prepared and stored at −70 °C until usage. The cardiac troponin measurement protocol consisted of two replicates per specimen per run, and one run per day for 20 days, using two reagent lots and three calibrations. Manufacturers of each cardiac troponin assay directly performed the measurements. Data analysis for each assay was centralized and performed according to the NCCLS EP5-A guideline. Results: The lowest concentrations (μg/L) providing a 10% CV were as follows: AxSYM, 1.22; ACS:180, 0.37; Centaur, 0.33; Immuno 1, 0.34; Access, 0.06; Vidas, 0.36; Liaison, 0.065; Dimension, 0.26; Opus, 0.90; Stratus CS, 0.10; Immulite, 0.32; Vitros ECi, 0.44; Elecsys, 0.04; AIA 21, 0.09. Conclusion: No cardiac troponin assay was able to achieve the 10% CV recommendation at the 99th percentile reference limit defined by the manufacturer.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2003.026815

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 368

Metadata

Authors
Panteghini, M., Pagani, F., Yeo, K.-T. J., Apple, F. S., Christenson, R. H., Dati, F., Mair, J., Ravkilde, J., Wu, A. H. B., & the Committee on Standardization of Markers of Cardiac Damage of the IFCC
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
327-332
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2122563040
Cited by
368
References
0
FWCI
27.73
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: Evaluation of Imprecision for Cardiac Troponin Assays at Low-Range Concentrations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2003.026815
The paper
Panteghini, M., Pagani, F., Yeo, K.-T. J., Apple, F. S., Christenson, R. H., Dati, F., Mair, J., Ravkilde, J., Wu, A. H. B., & the Committee on Standardization of Markers of Cardiac Damage of the IFCC. (2004). Evaluation of Imprecision for Cardiac Troponin Assays at Low-Range Concentrations. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2003.026815

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.