Cited by 103Diabetes and associated disordersClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlDiabetes Management and Research

Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program 2018 workshop: interlaboratory comparison of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibody assay performance

Open access
Lampasona, Vito, Pittman, David L, Williams, Alistair J, Achenbach, Peter, Schlosser, Michael, Akolkar, Beena, Winter, William E, Participating Laboratories +41 more·2019·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program (IASP) aims to improve the performance of immunoassays measuring type 1 diabetes (T1D)-associated autoantibodies and the concordance of results among laboratories. IASP organizes international interlaboratory assay comparison studies in which blinded serum samples are distributed to participating laboratories, followed by centralized collection and analysis of results, providing participants with an unbiased comparative assessment. In this report, we describe the results of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibody (GADA) assays presented in the IASP 2018 workshop. METHODS: In May 2018, IASP distributed to participants uniquely coded sera from 43 new-onset T1D patients, 7 multiple autoantibody-positive nondiabetic individuals, and 90 blood donors. Results were analyzed for the following metrics: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC), partial ROC-AUC at 95% specificity (pAUC95), and concordance of qualitative and quantitative results. RESULTS: Thirty-seven laboratories submitted results from a total of 48 different GADA assays adopting 9 different formats. The median ROC-AUC and pAUC95 of all assays were 0.87 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.83–0.89] and 0.036 (IQR, 0.032–0.039), respectively. Large differences in pAUC95 (range, 0.001–0.0411) were observed across assays. Of formats widely adopted, bridge ELISAs showed the best median pAUC95 (0.039; range, 0.036–0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Several novel assay formats submitted to this study showed heterogeneous performance. In 2018, the majority of the best performing GADA immunoassays consisted of novel or established nonradioactive tests that proved on a par or superior to the radiobinding assay, the previous gold standard assay format for GADA measurement.

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.2019.304196

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The performance of GADA and IA-2A assays is improving, as demonstrated by the Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program.

    “The performance of GADA and IA-2A assays is improving, as demonstrated by the Islet Autoantibody Standardization Program (440,442).”

    From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [442]

    The Abstract Conclusions and Discussion report high-performing GADA assays, including nonradioactive formats that performed as well as or better than the previous gold-standard format. But this 2018 comparison does not establish a trend of improvement over time, and it evaluates GADA assays, not IA-2A assays. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lampasona, V., Pittman, D. L., Williams, A. J., Achenbach, P., Schlosser, M., Akolkar, B., Winter, W. E., Laboratories, P., Watson, K., Weets, I., Tao, Y., Chen, V, Yang, Y., Uibo, R., Reimand, K., Knip, M., Härkönen, T., Chatenoud, L., Achenbach, P., Neidhoefer, S., Schlosser, M., Lampasona, V, Kawasaki, E., Batstra, M. R., Cieremans, T., Almås, B., Opsion, K. S., Wyka, K., Castaño, L., Ramelius, A., Johansson, I., Williams, A., Furmaniak, J., McDonald, T., McLaughlin, K., Christie, M., Metz, A., Mathew, A., Hampe, C., Lu, C., Wasserfall, C., Mann, C., Pittman, D., Ananta, J. S., Yu, L., Mamula, M., Robinson, P., Gaur, V, & Hagopian, W. A.
Affiliations
  • San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Diabetes and Metabolism, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany
  • Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • Jiangsu Province Hospital (CN)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
  • Shenzhen YHLO Biotech Co., Ltd. (China) (CN)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (US)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
  • Institute of Diabetes Research, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany
  • Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
  • Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Greifswald, Karlsburg, Germany
  • San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Istituto Scientifico San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
  • Reinier de Graaf Hospital (NL)
  • Haukeland University Hospital (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Medical University of Lodz (PL)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Diabetes & Metabolism, Learning & Research, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Wave 80 Biosciences (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Meso Scale Discovery, Gaithersburg, MD, USA
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Florida Health Pathology Laboratories, University of Florida Health Pathology Laboratories, Gainesville, FL
  • Nirmidas Biotech INC, Palo Alto, CA, USA
  • Yale University (US)
  • Pacific Northwest Research Institute (US)
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2019-09-01
Volume
65
Issue
9
Pages
1141-1152
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2967824496
Cited by
103
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • IASP study
  • University of South Florida
  • IASP Ancillary studies
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies, type 1 diabetes, islet autoantibodies, assay standardization, interlaboratory comparison, immunoassay performance, radiobinding assay, assay concordance, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Autoantibodies, Child, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Education, Female, Glutamate Decarboxylase, Humans, Immunoassay, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Standards, ROC Curve, Young Adult

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