The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Imprecision for Cardiac Troponin Assays at Low-Range Concentrations
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction
Thygesen, K., Alpert, J. S., & White, H. D. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.011 · Cited by 1,618
Anderson, J. L., Adams, C. D., Antman, E. M., Bridges, C. R., Califf, R. M., Casey, D. E., Chavey, W. E., Fesmire, F. M., Hochman, J. S., Levin, T. N., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.014 · Cited by 960
Troponin: the biomarker of choice for the detection of cardiac injury
Babuin, L., & Jaffe, A. S. (2005) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050141 · Cited by 686
Khan, N. A., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Tonelli, M., Thompson, C. R., & Levin, A. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.560128 · Cited by 351
Mingels, A., Jacobs, L., Michielsen, E., Swaanenburg, J., Wodzig, W., & van Dieijen-Visser, M. (2009) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2008.106427 · Cited by 295
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.