PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 13, 2026Diagnostics0 citationsOpen Access

A Comparative Study of the Clinical Laboratory Quality Control Performance of AI-PBRTQC and Traditional PBRTQC Model in Tumor Marker Testing

View Full Paper
BSBowen SuYZYanpeng ZhangXWXian Wu

Key Points

  • This study aims to identify the optimal quality control method for tumor marker testing by comparing AI-based and traditional approaches.
  • Utilized clinical tumor marker testing data from Peking University First Hospital.
  • Measured analytical error using constant error (CE) and proportional error (PE).
  • Compared quality control models using false alarm rate (FAR) and trimmed average number of patient results affected before error detection (tANPed).
  • NN-PBRTQC reduced tANPed by an average of 62% compared to traditional PBRTQC while maintaining the same FAR (0.1%).
  • PCRTQC had a tANPed 23% higher on average than traditional PBRTQC, indicating insufficient sensitivity.
  • NN-PBRTQC demonstrated superior sensitivity for error detection in clinical testing.

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of tumor marker testing is critical for clinical decision-making. Patient-based real-time quality control (PBRTQC), as a complementary approach to traditional internal quality control (IQC), has been widely adopted in clinical laboratories. With the rapid advancement of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years, a large number of AI-based PBRTQC optimization algorithms have emerged. This study compared Patient-based real-time quality control integrating neural networks and joint probability analysis (NN-PBRTQC), Patient-Based Pre-Classified Real-Time Quality Control (PCRTQC), and traditional PBRTQC to identify the optimal method for quality control of tumor marker testing. Methods: The study utilized clinical tumor marker testing data from Peking University First Hospital. Six common tumor markers were selected, and constant error (CE) and proportional error (PE) were introduced as measures of analytical error. The False Alarm Rate (FAR) was used to reflect the specificity of the algorithms, while the Trimmed Average Number of Patient Results Affected Before Error Detection (tANPed) was used to reflect their sensitivity, in order to compare the clinical performance of the different models. Results: Under the same desired FAR (DFAR) of 0.1%, NN-PBRTQC reduced the tANPed for the six tumor markers by an average of 62% compared to the traditional PBRTQC while maintaining the same FAR, which demonstrated superior sensitivity of error detection. Meanwhile, although PCRTQC strictly controlled the FAR, its tANPed was 23% higher on average than that of the traditional PBRTQC, which indicated insufficient sensitivity of error detection. Conclusions: NN-PBRTQC demonstrated superior comprehensive quality control performance in the comparison of six common tumor markers. While ensuring that the FAR does not deviate from the DFAR, it significantly reduces tANPed, such that it could meet the specificity and sensitivity requirements of clinical testing. It is expected to enable more efficient and accurate detection of tumor marker errors.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Su et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a04147679e20c90b44446bdhttps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16101438
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Enhanced patient-based real-time quality control using the graph-based anomaly detection2024 · 5 citations
  2. 2Integrating Patient-Based Real-Time Quality Control (PBRTQC) in a New Field: Inter-Comparison between Biochemical Instrumentations with LDL-C2024 · 8 citations
  3. 3Application of Patient‐Based Real‐Time Quality Control Based on Artificial Intelligence Monitoring Platform in Continuously Quality Risk Monitoring of Down Syndrome Serum Screening2024 · 8 citations
  4. 4Tumor markers: A diagnostic tool2016 · 171 citations
  5. 5Enhancement of OPTICS’ time complexity by using fuzzy clusters2021 · 8 citations