A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Method evaluation of pepsinogen I/II assay based on chemiluminescent immunoassays and comparison with other test methods. | LitMetric

Background: Serum pepsinogen (PG) I and the PG I/PG II ratio have been used for atrophic gastritis (AG) diagnosis for decades. Low levels of PG I and/or PG I/PG II are closely related to AG and predict the risk of gastric cancer. We evaluated the performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassay-based Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay.

Methods: The evaluation consisted of determination of the precision, linearity, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD) and method comparison with Eiken and Biohit assays.

Results: The total CVs were below 5% for both PG I and PG II. Acceptable linearity was observed for PG I and PG II in their respective reportable ranges. The PG I LoB was 0.317ng/mL and the PG II LoB was 0.418ng/mL, and LoDs were 0.412ng/mL and 0.497ng/mL, respectively. Correlation analysis indicated that results of the Architect assay were comparable to those of the Eiken and Biohit assays, but the three methods lead to different estimations of the cancer risk.

Conclusion: The overall analytical performance of Architect Pepsinogen I/II assay is acceptable for the detection of patients with suspected AG. The categorization results of gastric cancer risk showed some difference among test methods suggesting the need for harmonization among the methods from vendors.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2015.11.015DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pepsinogen i/ii
12
i/ii assay
8
test methods
8
gastric cancer
8
architect pepsinogen
8
eiken biohit
8
method evaluation
4
pepsinogen
4
evaluation pepsinogen
4
assay based
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!