<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>assay correlation and agreement &#8211; Science</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scienmag.com/tag/assay-correlation-and-agreement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scienmag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:11:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">73899611</site>	<item>
		<title>Real-World Study Validates Comparable Plasma NfL Testing Across Roche and Fujirebio Platforms</title>
		<link>https://scienmag.com/real-world-study-validates-comparable-plasma-nfl-testing-across-roche-and-fujirebio-platforms/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ophelia Keating]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 13:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analytical range and assay interchangeability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assay conversion equations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assay correlation and agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biomarker standardization in multiple sclerosis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinical validation of plasma NfL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fujirebio Lumipulse NfL assay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neurodegeneration biomarker analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plasma neurofilament light chain testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pNfL measurement comparison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retrospective single-center biomarker study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roche Elecsys NfL assay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simoa platform harmonization]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://scienmag.com/real-world-study-validates-comparable-plasma-nfl-testing-across-roche-and-fujirebio-platforms/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Study summary This retrospective single-center study evaluated plasma neurofilament light chain (pNfL) measured in 253 people with multiple sclerosis using two automated assays: Roche Elecsys® NfL on cobas e801 Fujirebio Lumipulse® G NfL Blood on LUMIPULSE G600 Main findings The assays were strongly correlated on the raw scale: Pearson correlation: r = 0.879 However, they [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>Study summary</h2>
<p>This retrospective single-center study evaluated plasma neurofilament light chain (pNfL) measured in 253 people with multiple sclerosis using two automated assays:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Roche Elecsys® NfL</strong> on cobas e801  </li>
<li><strong>Fujirebio Lumipulse® G NfL Blood</strong> on LUMIPULSE G600</li>
</ul>
<h3>Main findings</h3>
<ul>
<li>The assays were <strong>strongly correlated</strong> on the raw scale:
<ul>
<li>Pearson correlation: <strong>r = 0.879</strong></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>However, they showed <strong>poor absolute agreement</strong>:
<ul>
<li>Concordance correlation coefficient: <strong>CCC = 0.107</strong></li>
<li>Mean concentrations differed substantially:
<ul>
<li>Lumipulse: <strong>14.02 pg/mL</strong></li>
<li>Elecsys: <strong>1.50 pg/mL</strong></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Therefore, the two assays <strong>should not be treated as interchangeable using raw pg/mL values</strong>.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Proposed conversion</h3>
<p>The authors derived a directional Passing–Bablok conversion:</p>
<h1>[<br />
\text{Lumipulse-equivalent pNfL}</h1>
<p>1.97 + 11.171 \times \text{Elecsys pNfL}<br />
]</p>
<p>This equation is intended for conversion from <strong>Elecsys to Lumipulse values</strong>, within the analytical range studied. It should not automatically be assumed to work in the reverse direction or outside that range.</p>
<h3>Simoa-referenced harmonization</h3>
<p>Published equations were used to convert both platforms to Simoa-equivalent values:</p>
<ul>
<li>Elecsys-derived Simoa value:</li>
</ul>
<p>[<br />
6.31 \times \text{Elecsys} + 2.33<br />
]</p>
<ul>
<li>Lumipulse-derived Simoa value:</li>
</ul>
<p>[<br />
0.94 \times \text{Lumipulse} + 1.30<br />
]</p>
<p>Alignment improved after conversion, with a regression coefficient of approximately <strong>1.03</strong>, suggesting better comparability on the harmonized scale. However, these conversions are literature-based and do not establish that either assay is clinically identical to Simoa.</p>
<h3>Clinical validation of Elecsys</h3>
<p>Higher Elecsys pNfL was associated with greater disability:</p>
<ul>
<li>EDSS coefficient: <strong>0.302</strong>  </li>
<li>BMI-adjusted model: <strong>0.335</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Elecsys pNfL was also lower among treated than untreated patients, supporting expected biological and clinical validity in routine MS care.</p>
<h2>Clinical interpretation</h2>
<p>The practical message is:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Do not compare raw Elecsys and Lumipulse pNfL concentrations directly.</strong></li>
<li>A patient switching platforms may appear to have a large change in pNfL solely because of assay bias.</li>
<li>During platform transitions, clinicians should:
<ul>
<li>Continue interpreting results using the assay-specific reference range;</li>
<li>Prefer longitudinal monitoring on the same platform;</li>
<li>Consider conversion equations cautiously when necessary;</li>
<li>Avoid interpreting converted values as fully interchangeable measurements.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Important limitations</h2>
<ul>
<li>Retrospective, single-center design.</li>
<li>All samples were measured in singlicate.</li>
<li>Precision estimates such as cumulative intra- and inter-session CVs were not calculated.</li>
<li>Only one reagent lot per platform was used.</li>
<li>The Simoa conversions were based on published formulas rather than a direct three-platform calibration in the same samples.</li>
<li>The Elecsys-to-Lumipulse equation is directional and may not generalize beyond the observed concentration range.</li>
<li>Treatment status and disease characteristics may confound clinical associations.</li>
<li>Improved regression alignment after conversion does not necessarily demonstrate complete clinical agreement or equivalent decision thresholds.</li>
</ul>
<p>Overall, the study supports <strong>clinical validity of Elecsys pNfL in MS</strong>, but emphasizes that <strong>Elecsys and Lumipulse values are assay-specific and cannot be directly substituted on the raw pg/mL scale</strong>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">181681</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
