Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma
Abstract Background Despite increasing recognition as a more precise test of in vivo hemostatic conditions, standardization of the thrombin generation test (TGT) continues to hinder its development as routine clinical practice. Prior efforts largely focused on comparing the effects of experimental c...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Thrombosis research 2013-09, Vol.132 (3), p.374-380 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 380 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 374 |
container_title | Thrombosis research |
container_volume | 132 |
creator | Woodle, S.A Shibeko, A.M Lee, T.K Ovanesov, M.V |
description | Abstract Background Despite increasing recognition as a more precise test of in vivo hemostatic conditions, standardization of the thrombin generation test (TGT) continues to hinder its development as routine clinical practice. Prior efforts largely focused on comparing the effects of experimental conditions and different reagents. Commercialized kits, instruments and software have been introduced to calculate the TG curve and its parameters. However, modified versions of the TGT continue to be used worldwide on a variety of microplate reader instruments and processed using individualized algorithms. No prior study has compared the effect of instrument choice and its inherent noise profile on the processing of the TG curve and its common endpoint parameters. Materials and Methods Hemophilia A plasma supplemented with buffer or Factor VIII, mimicking hemophilic or normalized samples respectively, was monitored for thrombin generation after activation with TF on six different fluorescent microplate readers. Each instrument was optimized for TGT signal recording prior to testing. An automated software package containing various mathematical algorithms was utilized to compute the TG curves and parameters, and compare different TG processing approaches. Results Instruments produced unique noise profiles and end-point parameters that were incomparable in absolute signal terms. Similar relative hemophilic responses were obtained across various instruments when the normalized plasma sample was used as an internal standard. Smoothing algorithms corrected destructive instrument noise. Conclusions Instrument-induced errors from numerical differentiation during TG curve processing cannot be eliminated by external calibrators, and require careful qualification of the instrument and implementation of noise-reducing software algorithms. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.thromres.2013.07.018 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1431298645</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0049384813003174</els_id><sourcerecordid>1431298645</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-7855584c8abdf779663e6a12d29342686f8f5109273ff23c6d67c60e102af5f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkj1v1TAUhiMEopfCX6g8siT4I7HjBYEKLUiVGLjMluscN77EdrCdorL0r5NwWwYWJi_P-x75OaeqzghuCCb8zaEpY4o-QW4oJqzBosGkf1LtSC9kTVtBn1Y7jFtZs77tT6oXOR8wJoLI7nl1QpnsWCfZrrr_AAWSd8GFG1RGQM7P2hQULXIhl7R4CAXd6uR0cTEgHQaklxK9LjCgHG35qRMgPd3E5MroM1qhrWd_uV8b0Ag-zqObnP4TDTF5Pblfa3aedPb6ZfXM6inDq4f3tPp28XF__qm--nL5-fz9VW1aykot-q7r-tb0-nqwQkjOGXBN6EAlaynvue1tR7CkgllLmeEDF4ZjIJhq21nJTqvXx945xR8L5KK8ywamSQeIS1akZYTKnrfdivIjalLMOYFVc3JepztFsNrkq4N6lK82-QoLtcpfg2cPM5ZrD8Pf2KPtFXh3BGD96a2DpLJxEAwMLoEpaoju_zPe_lNhpnV5Rk_f4Q7yIS4prB4VUZkqrL5uJ7BdAGEYMyJa9hvXXbAi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1431298645</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Woodle, S.A ; Shibeko, A.M ; Lee, T.K ; Ovanesov, M.V</creator><creatorcontrib>Woodle, S.A ; Shibeko, A.M ; Lee, T.K ; Ovanesov, M.V</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Despite increasing recognition as a more precise test of in vivo hemostatic conditions, standardization of the thrombin generation test (TGT) continues to hinder its development as routine clinical practice. Prior efforts largely focused on comparing the effects of experimental conditions and different reagents. Commercialized kits, instruments and software have been introduced to calculate the TG curve and its parameters. However, modified versions of the TGT continue to be used worldwide on a variety of microplate reader instruments and processed using individualized algorithms. No prior study has compared the effect of instrument choice and its inherent noise profile on the processing of the TG curve and its common endpoint parameters. Materials and Methods Hemophilia A plasma supplemented with buffer or Factor VIII, mimicking hemophilic or normalized samples respectively, was monitored for thrombin generation after activation with TF on six different fluorescent microplate readers. Each instrument was optimized for TGT signal recording prior to testing. An automated software package containing various mathematical algorithms was utilized to compute the TG curves and parameters, and compare different TG processing approaches. Results Instruments produced unique noise profiles and end-point parameters that were incomparable in absolute signal terms. Similar relative hemophilic responses were obtained across various instruments when the normalized plasma sample was used as an internal standard. Smoothing algorithms corrected destructive instrument noise. Conclusions Instrument-induced errors from numerical differentiation during TG curve processing cannot be eliminated by external calibrators, and require careful qualification of the instrument and implementation of noise-reducing software algorithms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0049-3848</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2472</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2013.07.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23953593</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; assay ; Automation - instrumentation ; Automation - methods ; Automation - standards ; Blood Coagulation ; Blood Coagulation Tests - instrumentation ; Blood Coagulation Tests - methods ; Blood Coagulation Tests - standards ; Calibration ; Deficiency ; Factor VIII ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Hemophilia ; Hemophilia A - blood ; Humans ; Reference Standards ; Software ; Thrombin ; Thrombin - biosynthesis</subject><ispartof>Thrombosis research, 2013-09, Vol.132 (3), p.374-380</ispartof><rights>2013</rights><rights>2013.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-7855584c8abdf779663e6a12d29342686f8f5109273ff23c6d67c60e102af5f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-7855584c8abdf779663e6a12d29342686f8f5109273ff23c6d67c60e102af5f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2013.07.018$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23953593$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Woodle, S.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shibeko, A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, T.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ovanesov, M.V</creatorcontrib><title>Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma</title><title>Thrombosis research</title><addtitle>Thromb Res</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Despite increasing recognition as a more precise test of in vivo hemostatic conditions, standardization of the thrombin generation test (TGT) continues to hinder its development as routine clinical practice. Prior efforts largely focused on comparing the effects of experimental conditions and different reagents. Commercialized kits, instruments and software have been introduced to calculate the TG curve and its parameters. However, modified versions of the TGT continue to be used worldwide on a variety of microplate reader instruments and processed using individualized algorithms. No prior study has compared the effect of instrument choice and its inherent noise profile on the processing of the TG curve and its common endpoint parameters. Materials and Methods Hemophilia A plasma supplemented with buffer or Factor VIII, mimicking hemophilic or normalized samples respectively, was monitored for thrombin generation after activation with TF on six different fluorescent microplate readers. Each instrument was optimized for TGT signal recording prior to testing. An automated software package containing various mathematical algorithms was utilized to compute the TG curves and parameters, and compare different TG processing approaches. Results Instruments produced unique noise profiles and end-point parameters that were incomparable in absolute signal terms. Similar relative hemophilic responses were obtained across various instruments when the normalized plasma sample was used as an internal standard. Smoothing algorithms corrected destructive instrument noise. Conclusions Instrument-induced errors from numerical differentiation during TG curve processing cannot be eliminated by external calibrators, and require careful qualification of the instrument and implementation of noise-reducing software algorithms.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>assay</subject><subject>Automation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Automation - methods</subject><subject>Automation - standards</subject><subject>Blood Coagulation</subject><subject>Blood Coagulation Tests - instrumentation</subject><subject>Blood Coagulation Tests - methods</subject><subject>Blood Coagulation Tests - standards</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Deficiency</subject><subject>Factor VIII</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Hemophilia</subject><subject>Hemophilia A - blood</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Thrombin</subject><subject>Thrombin - biosynthesis</subject><issn>0049-3848</issn><issn>1879-2472</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkj1v1TAUhiMEopfCX6g8siT4I7HjBYEKLUiVGLjMluscN77EdrCdorL0r5NwWwYWJi_P-x75OaeqzghuCCb8zaEpY4o-QW4oJqzBosGkf1LtSC9kTVtBn1Y7jFtZs77tT6oXOR8wJoLI7nl1QpnsWCfZrrr_AAWSd8GFG1RGQM7P2hQULXIhl7R4CAXd6uR0cTEgHQaklxK9LjCgHG35qRMgPd3E5MroM1qhrWd_uV8b0Ag-zqObnP4TDTF5Pblfa3aedPb6ZfXM6inDq4f3tPp28XF__qm--nL5-fz9VW1aykot-q7r-tb0-nqwQkjOGXBN6EAlaynvue1tR7CkgllLmeEDF4ZjIJhq21nJTqvXx945xR8L5KK8ywamSQeIS1akZYTKnrfdivIjalLMOYFVc3JepztFsNrkq4N6lK82-QoLtcpfg2cPM5ZrD8Pf2KPtFXh3BGD96a2DpLJxEAwMLoEpaoju_zPe_lNhpnV5Rk_f4Q7yIS4prB4VUZkqrL5uJ7BdAGEYMyJa9hvXXbAi</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Woodle, S.A</creator><creator>Shibeko, A.M</creator><creator>Lee, T.K</creator><creator>Ovanesov, M.V</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma</title><author>Woodle, S.A ; Shibeko, A.M ; Lee, T.K ; Ovanesov, M.V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c423t-7855584c8abdf779663e6a12d29342686f8f5109273ff23c6d67c60e102af5f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>assay</topic><topic>Automation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Automation - methods</topic><topic>Automation - standards</topic><topic>Blood Coagulation</topic><topic>Blood Coagulation Tests - instrumentation</topic><topic>Blood Coagulation Tests - methods</topic><topic>Blood Coagulation Tests - standards</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Deficiency</topic><topic>Factor VIII</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Hemophilia</topic><topic>Hemophilia A - blood</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Thrombin</topic><topic>Thrombin - biosynthesis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Woodle, S.A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shibeko, A.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, T.K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ovanesov, M.V</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Thrombosis research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Woodle, S.A</au><au>Shibeko, A.M</au><au>Lee, T.K</au><au>Ovanesov, M.V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma</atitle><jtitle>Thrombosis research</jtitle><addtitle>Thromb Res</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>132</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>374</spage><epage>380</epage><pages>374-380</pages><issn>0049-3848</issn><eissn>1879-2472</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Despite increasing recognition as a more precise test of in vivo hemostatic conditions, standardization of the thrombin generation test (TGT) continues to hinder its development as routine clinical practice. Prior efforts largely focused on comparing the effects of experimental conditions and different reagents. Commercialized kits, instruments and software have been introduced to calculate the TG curve and its parameters. However, modified versions of the TGT continue to be used worldwide on a variety of microplate reader instruments and processed using individualized algorithms. No prior study has compared the effect of instrument choice and its inherent noise profile on the processing of the TG curve and its common endpoint parameters. Materials and Methods Hemophilia A plasma supplemented with buffer or Factor VIII, mimicking hemophilic or normalized samples respectively, was monitored for thrombin generation after activation with TF on six different fluorescent microplate readers. Each instrument was optimized for TGT signal recording prior to testing. An automated software package containing various mathematical algorithms was utilized to compute the TG curves and parameters, and compare different TG processing approaches. Results Instruments produced unique noise profiles and end-point parameters that were incomparable in absolute signal terms. Similar relative hemophilic responses were obtained across various instruments when the normalized plasma sample was used as an internal standard. Smoothing algorithms corrected destructive instrument noise. Conclusions Instrument-induced errors from numerical differentiation during TG curve processing cannot be eliminated by external calibrators, and require careful qualification of the instrument and implementation of noise-reducing software algorithms.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>23953593</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.thromres.2013.07.018</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0049-3848 |
ispartof | Thrombosis research, 2013-09, Vol.132 (3), p.374-380 |
issn | 0049-3848 1879-2472 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1431298645 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Algorithms assay Automation - instrumentation Automation - methods Automation - standards Blood Coagulation Blood Coagulation Tests - instrumentation Blood Coagulation Tests - methods Blood Coagulation Tests - standards Calibration Deficiency Factor VIII Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine Hemophilia Hemophilia A - blood Humans Reference Standards Software Thrombin Thrombin - biosynthesis |
title | Determining the impact of instrument variation and automated software algorithms on the TGT in hemophilia and normalized plasma |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T03%3A51%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determining%20the%20impact%20of%20instrument%20variation%20and%20automated%20software%20algorithms%20on%20the%20TGT%20in%20hemophilia%20and%20normalized%20plasma&rft.jtitle=Thrombosis%20research&rft.au=Woodle,%20S.A&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=132&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=374&rft.epage=380&rft.pages=374-380&rft.issn=0049-3848&rft.eissn=1879-2472&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.thromres.2013.07.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1431298645%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1431298645&rft_id=info:pmid/23953593&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0049384813003174&rfr_iscdi=true |