Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinical · 2026
Cross-platform comparison of blood glial fibrillary acidic protein quantification in healthy controls and multiple sclerosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ladwig Anne, Torge Antje, Falk Kim Kristin, Dammann Antonia, Schlapkohl Melanie, Stürner Klarissa Hanja, Wandinger Klaus-Peter, Markewitz Robert, Junker Ralf, Ziemann Malte, Schuster Sven Ole, Piel Johannes, Leypoldt Frank, Dargvainiene Justina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is an astrocyte marker increasingly recognized as a biomarker of disease progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). While highly sensitive assays are available, cross-platform harmonization remains insufficient, limiting routine clinical implementation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three fully automated GFAP assays, assess their analytical agreement and clinical performance across MS subtypes and healthy controls, and evaluate cross-platform conversion approaches.
METHODS: Serum samples from 435 individuals (298 healthy controls, 51 relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), 41 primary/secondary progressive MS (PPMS/SPMS)) were analyzed using three automated platforms: Simoa HD-X (Quanterix), Elecsys (Roche), and Lumipulse G600 (Fujirebio). Correlation analyses, Passing-Bablok regression, and Lin's concordance coefficients were applied. Published regression formulas were compared with study-derived equations.
RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed across all platforms (r > 0.90 with outliers; r > 0.95 without; p < 0.001), though minor systematic biases were detected. Progressive MS patients showed significantly higher GFAP concentrations than RRMS and controls. Conversion to a single-platform scale improved agreement, but regression formulas differed substantially from previously published equations.
CONCLUSION: Serum GFAP measurements demonstrate high clinical comparability across automated platforms despite systematic differences in absolute values. Robust harmonization strategies and externally validated conversion models are required before broad implementation in routine MS diagnostics.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three fully automated GFAP assays, assess their analytical agreement and clinical performance across MS subtypes and healthy controls, and evaluate cross-platform conversion approaches.
METHODS: Serum samples from 435 individuals (298 healthy controls, 51 relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), 41 primary/secondary progressive MS (PPMS/SPMS)) were analyzed using three automated platforms: Simoa HD-X (Quanterix), Elecsys (Roche), and Lumipulse G600 (Fujirebio). Correlation analyses, Passing-Bablok regression, and Lin's concordance coefficients were applied. Published regression formulas were compared with study-derived equations.
RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed across all platforms (r > 0.90 with outliers; r > 0.95 without; p < 0.001), though minor systematic biases were detected. Progressive MS patients showed significantly higher GFAP concentrations than RRMS and controls. Conversion to a single-platform scale improved agreement, but regression formulas differed substantially from previously published equations.
CONCLUSION: Serum GFAP measurements demonstrate high clinical comparability across automated platforms despite systematic differences in absolute values. Robust harmonization strategies and externally validated conversion models are required before broad implementation in routine MS diagnostics.