Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2025
Glycated albumin is not applicable to differentiate gestational diabetes mellitus in Chinese pregnant women.
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.
Peng Wan, Yang Qin, Wang Wenjuan, Xie Chunmei, Feng Qiulin, Wu Lingli, Liang Zhiqing, Ling Zhijian, Liu Fei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Some studies have suggested that Glycated albumin (GA) may represent a useful biomarker in pregnant women for diagnosing and monitoring gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, whether GA is a sufficiently accurate marker to screen GDM in a general population of pregnant women remains unclear. The current study aimed to investigate the role of GA in screening GDM in Chinese pregnant women.
METHODS: In this study, 298 Chinese women between 24-28 weeks of gestation were included. A total number of 247 women with normal glucose tolerance and 51 with GDM were identified according to the glucose levels detection. GA concentrations (GA%) were measured using three different kits, all of which utilized the ketoamine oxidase method for analysis.
RESULTS: Firstly, we found the GA% levels of the GDM group were significantly higher than those of healthy control. Specifically, the GA% level of the healthy control using Lucica, Maccura, Gcell was respectively 12.86 ± 0.8458, 13.40 ± 0.9344 or 10.98 ± 1.009, while that of the GDM patients was respectively 13.21 ± 1.101, 13.78 ± 1.219 and 11.44 ± 1.449. Then, the Receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that the areas under the curve (AUC) of all kits were less than 0.7 (Lucica, AUC = 0.6149; Maccura, AUC = 0.6140; Gcell, AUC = 0.6078), which do not provide support for the utilization of GA as a screening tool for GDM.
CONCLUSION: GA is not a good indicator for screening GDM initially.
METHODS: In this study, 298 Chinese women between 24-28 weeks of gestation were included. A total number of 247 women with normal glucose tolerance and 51 with GDM were identified according to the glucose levels detection. GA concentrations (GA%) were measured using three different kits, all of which utilized the ketoamine oxidase method for analysis.
RESULTS: Firstly, we found the GA% levels of the GDM group were significantly higher than those of healthy control. Specifically, the GA% level of the healthy control using Lucica, Maccura, Gcell was respectively 12.86 ± 0.8458, 13.40 ± 0.9344 or 10.98 ± 1.009, while that of the GDM patients was respectively 13.21 ± 1.101, 13.78 ± 1.219 and 11.44 ± 1.449. Then, the Receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed that the areas under the curve (AUC) of all kits were less than 0.7 (Lucica, AUC = 0.6149; Maccura, AUC = 0.6140; Gcell, AUC = 0.6078), which do not provide support for the utilization of GA as a screening tool for GDM.
CONCLUSION: GA is not a good indicator for screening GDM initially.