Alexander B. Leichtle

Clinical laboratories frequently conduct method verification studies to ensure that the process meets quality standards for its intended use, such as patient testing. They play a pivotal role in healthcare, but issues such as accurate statistical assessment and reporting of verification data often make these studies challenging. Missteps can lead to false conclusions about method performance, risking patient safety or leading to incorrect diagnoses. Despite a requirement for accredited labs to document method performance, existing solutions are often expensive and complex. Addressing these issues, we present Method Verification-Graphical User Interface (MV-GUI), a software package designed for ease of use. It is platform-independent, capable of statistical analysis, and generates accreditation-ready reports swiftly and efficiently. Users can input patient data from one or more .CSV files, and MV-GUI will produce comprehensive reports, including statistical comparison tables, regression plots, and Bland–Altman plots. While method validation, which establishes the performance of new diagnostic tools, remains a crucial concern for manufacturers, MV-GUI primarily streamlines the method verification process. The software aids both medical practitioners and researchers and is designed to be user-friendly, even for non-experienced users. Requiring no internet connection, MV-GUI can operate in restricted IT environments, making method verification widely accessible and efficient.

Antibody testing in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can add to diagnostic accuracy of the main subtypes Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Whether modern modeling techniques such as supervised and unsupervised machine learning are of value for finer distinction of subtypes such as IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) is not known. We determined the antibody profile of 100 adult IBD patients from the Swiss IBD cohort study with known subtype (50 CD, 50 UC) as well as of 76 IBD-U patients. We included ASCA IgG and IgA, p-ANCA, MPO- and PR3-ANCA, and xANCA measurements for computing different antibody panels as well as machine learning models. The AUC of an optimized antibody panel was 85% (95%CI, 78–92%) to distinguish CD from UC patients. The antibody profile of IBD-U patients was closely related to UC. No specific antibody profile was predictive for IBD-U nor for re-classification. The panel diagnostic was in favor of UC reclassification prediction with a correct assignment rate of 69.2–73.1% depending on the cut-off applied. Supervised machine learning could not distinguish between CD, UC, and IBD-U. More so, unsupervised machine learning suggested only two distinct clusters as a likely number of IBD subtypes. Antibodies in IBD are supportive in confirming clinical determined subtypes CD and UC but have limited capacity to predict IBD-U and reclassification during follow-up. In terms of antibody profiles, IBD-U is not a distinct subtype of IBD.