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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2026-05-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16101438
Primary Topic
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Yinan Song, Xiaomin Shi, Xian Wu, Y Jiang et al.
Diagnostics
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
article

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

Yinan Song, Xiaomin Shi, Xian Wu, Y Jiang, Yanpeng Zhang, Bowen Su
article en

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.

DiagnosticsVol. 16(10)
Peking University (CN), Peking University First Hospital (CN)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.