ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2025
Assessment and Application of Acylcarnitines Summations as Auxiliary Quantization Indicator for Primary Carnitine Deficiency.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2025. 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.
- Recent advances in the bioanalysis of acylcarnitines: Methodologies, challenges, and clinical perspectives.Pharmaceutical science advances · 2026Review
- Pathogenic Analysis of TwoInternational journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNewborns are referred primary carnitine deficiency (PCD) when a low free carnitine (C0) concentration (<10 μmol/L) is detected, leading to high false-positive referrals. To improve the follow-up protocol for PCD, various acylcarnitines and the summations were comprehensively evaluated in the present study.
methodsA retrospective study was performed using samples due to low C0 concentration. Data were available for 72 patients with genetically confirmed PCD, whereafter C0 with the selected sum of (butyrylcarnitine (C4) + isovalerylcarnitine (C5)) was validated in an additional cohort study including about 80,000 samples.
resultsIn the discovery study, C4, acetylcarnitine (C2) and C5 exhibited significant discriminant power in distinguishing PCDs from NoPCDs. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 99.792% (C4), 98.715% (C2) and 98.620% (C5). The excellent performances in sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy indexes suggested that C4, C2 and C5 would be ideal auxiliary indicators in improving the diagnostic performance of C0 for PCD. Multivariate ROC curve-based exploratory analysis showed that C5, C4 and C2 were the most top-ranked features in differentiating PCDs from NoPCDs. AUC for C4 + C5 was the highest with a cutoff required for 100% sensitivity at 0.181 μmol/L. In the validation cohort, adding C4 + C5 in the NBS program could elevate PPV from 0.75% to 1.54%.
conclusionsOur work revealed that C4 + C5 summation should be used as the auxiliary quantization indicator to reduce false-positive results for PCD.
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.