Suppr超能文献

52种谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体检测方法的疾病敏感性和特异性。第二届国际谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体研讨会。

Disease sensitivity and specificity of 52 assays for glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies. The Second International GADAB Workshop.

作者信息

Schmidli R S, Colman P G, Bonifacio E

机构信息

Endocrinology Laboratory, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Diabetes. 1995 Jun;44(6):636-40. doi: 10.2337/diab.44.6.636.

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the use of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies (GADAbs) for identification of subjects at increased risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). However, considerable variation exists between laboratories in the reported frequency of GADAb in various clinical situations, and disease sensitivity and specificity have not yet been compared between assays. An international workshop was held in which 101 coded freeze-dried sera, including 39 from subjects with newly diagnosed IDDM, 32 from healthy control subjects, 4 from nondiabetic subjects with Graves' disease, and 4 from islet cell antibody-positive subjects, were analyzed in 52 assays (radiobinding assay [RBA], 26; enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA], 19; and enzymatic immunoprecipitation assay [EIP], 7). The mean sensitivity for RBAs (76.2%) was higher than for ELISAs (36.5%) and EIPs (49.9%) (P < 0.01). The mean specificity was similar for each assay format (RBA, 89.4%; ELISA. 89.4%; and EIP, 92.3%). The lower sensitivities of the ELISA and EIP were predominantly due to the inability of these assays to detect low levels of GADAb in IDDM. To convert results to standard units, standard curves were constructed using duplicate dilutions of the anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase monoclonal antibody MICA 3 and serum from a patient with stiff-man syndrome (SMS). Curves could be derived in 28 assays using the MICA 3 serum and in 29 using the SMS serum. The mean coefficients of variation between assays for disease and control samples were 45% when results were converted to MICA units, 77% for SMS units, and 76% for SD scores.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

使用谷氨酸脱羧酶抗体(GADAbs)来识别患胰岛素依赖型糖尿病(IDDM)风险增加的个体,正受到越来越多的关注。然而,各实验室报告的不同临床情况下GADAb的频率存在相当大的差异,并且尚未对不同检测方法之间的疾病敏感性和特异性进行比较。举办了一次国际研讨会,对101份编码的冻干血清进行分析,其中包括39份新诊断为IDDM患者的血清、32份健康对照者的血清、4份患有格雷夫斯病的非糖尿病患者的血清以及4份胰岛细胞抗体阳性患者的血清,共采用了52种检测方法(放射结合分析[RBA],26种;酶联免疫吸附测定[ELISA],19种;酶免疫沉淀测定[EIP],7种)。RBA的平均敏感性(76.2%)高于ELISA(36.5%)和EIP(49.9%)(P<0.01)。每种检测方法的平均特异性相似(RBA为89.4%;ELISA为89.4%;EIP为92.3%)。ELISA和EIP较低的敏感性主要是由于这些检测方法无法检测出IDDM患者中低水平的GADAb。为了将结果转换为标准单位,使用抗谷氨酸脱羧酶单克隆抗体MICA 3的重复稀释液和僵人综合征(SMS)患者的血清构建标准曲线。使用MICA 3血清可在28种检测方法中得出曲线,使用SMS血清可在29种检测方法中得出曲线。当结果转换为MICA单位时,疾病和对照样本检测方法之间的平均变异系数为45%,SMS单位为77%,标准差分数为76%。(摘要截取自250字)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验