Ross J L, Barnes K M, Brody S, Merriam G R, Loriaux D L, Cutler G B
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1984 Dec;59(6):1159-63. doi: 10.1210/jcem-59-6-1159.
There is no consensus on the optimum method to identify gonadotropin pulses in serum. We compared two approaches for detecting gonadotropin peaks. The first employed the conventional criterion of an increment from nadir to peak of 3 times the intraassay coefficient of variation (3 CV). The second identified peaks by Student's t test to quadruplicate measurements at each time point. We obtained blood samples every 5 min for 6 h from four women in the follicular phase. We also constructed control or noise series by subdividing single serum pools into consecutively labeled aliquots. Any variations in hormone concentration in the noise series that were identified as peaks were, by definition, false positive peaks. We evaluated the effect of sampling interval on gonadotropin peak detection by omitting data to simulate sampling every 10, 15, or 20 min. The 3 CV approach identified numerous false positive peaks in the noise series and detected as many peaks in the noise series as it did in the patient series. Increasing the sampling frequency from every 20 to every 5 min nearly doubled the apparent peak frequencies in both the patient and the noise series (P less than 0.025). By contrast, the t test method detected far fewer false positive peaks and significantly more peaks in the patient series than in the noise series. Increasing the sampling frequency from every 20 to every 5 min resulted in a 50-75% increase in peak frequency by the t test method. This increase in peak frequency appeared to result from improved detection of small peaks, because samples were obtained nearer the true peaks and nadirs. The resulting increase in the nadir to peak increment made it more likely that a small peak would achieve statistical significance. We conclude that increasingly stringent criteria for pulse detection should be applied as one increase the sampling frequency, and that the t test approach is a more valid method than the 3 CV approach because it yields significantly fewer false positive peaks.
关于血清中促性腺激素脉冲的最佳识别方法尚无共识。我们比较了两种检测促性腺激素峰值的方法。第一种方法采用传统标准,即从最低点到峰值的增幅为测定内变异系数的3倍(3CV)。第二种方法通过对每个时间点的四次重复测量进行Student t检验来识别峰值。我们在卵泡期从四名女性身上每5分钟采集一次血样,共采集6小时。我们还通过将单个血清池细分为连续标记的等分试样构建了对照或噪声系列。噪声系列中被识别为峰值的激素浓度的任何变化,根据定义,都是假阳性峰值。我们通过省略数据以模拟每10、15或20分钟采样一次,评估了采样间隔对促性腺激素峰值检测的影响。3CV方法在噪声系列中识别出大量假阳性峰值,并且在噪声系列中检测到的峰值与在患者系列中检测到的一样多。将采样频率从每20分钟增加到每5分钟,患者系列和噪声系列中的表观峰值频率几乎都增加了一倍(P小于0.025)。相比之下,t检验方法检测到的假阳性峰值要少得多,并且在患者系列中检测到的峰值明显多于噪声系列。将采样频率从每20分钟增加到每5分钟,t检验方法使峰值频率增加了50 - 75%。峰值频率的这种增加似乎是由于对小峰值的检测得到了改善,因为采样更接近真实的峰值和最低点。最低点到峰值增幅的增加使得小峰值更有可能达到统计学显著性。我们得出结论,随着采样频率的增加,应应用越来越严格的脉冲检测标准,并且t检验方法比3CV方法更有效,因为它产生的假阳性峰值明显更少。