ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2018
Evaluation of semi-automatic image analysis tools for cerebrospinal fluid electrophoresis of IgG oligoclonal bands.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oligoclonal Band Straightening Based on Optimized Hierarchical Warping for Multiple Sclerosis Diagnosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Toward an automatic tool for oligoclonal band detection in cerebrospinal fluid and tears for multiple sclerosis diagnosis: lane segmentation based on a ribbon univariate open active contour.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIgG concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid generally range from 20 to 45 mg/L. In multiple sclerosis immune reactions lead to intrathecal synthesis of specific IgGs that can be detected in biological fluid samples both quantitatively and qualitatively by isoelectric focusing of supplementary oligoclonal IgG bands.
methodA simple tool, using the MATLAB application, to facilitate and improve isoelectric focusing profile analysis is presented and evaluated in terms of its sensitivity, repeatability and reproducibility. A comparison between human readers and semi-automatic method has also been performed.
resultsResults from the semi-automatic method were found to be equivalent or superior to generally employed laboratory methods. Repeatability analysis for semi-automatic processing yielded coefficients of variation (CVs) in the 3-7% range, and using a sample with an estimated IgG concentration of 200 mg/L, four bands were still visible after dilution to 5 mg/L, corresponding to band concentrations of 1.1-1.6 mg/L. Discordances between visual inspection and automatic analysis only appear at threshold levels for interpretation (the gray zone).
conclusionThe semi-automatic method has acceptable performance for routine implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.