Table 5.
Supporting calibrator | Bias | Bias (%) | Using 847 U/L recalibration | Bias | Bias (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | y = 1.02x − 0.78 (R² = 0.999) | 13.78 | 1.89 | y = 0.95x + 25.08 (R² = 0.991) | −11 | 1.55 |
B | y = 0.49x − 4.89 (R² = 0.988) | −376 | −51.67 | y = 0.98x + 0.93 (R² = 0.993) | −14 | −1.87 |
C | y = 1.00x + 63.0 (R² = 0.996) | 63 | 8.65 | y = 0.79x + 84.08 (R² = 0.953) | −69 | −9.45 |
Supporting calibrator | Bias | Bias (%) | Using 442 U/L recalibration | Bias | Bias (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | y = 1.11x − 5.27 (R 2 = 0.999) | 75 | 10.28 | y = 0.999x + 3.26 (R² = 0.999) | −3 | −0.35 |
B | y = 0.48x + 6.5 (R² = 0.998) | −372 | −51.11 | y = 0.98x + 15.92 (R² = 0.998) | −1.36 | −0.19 |
C | y = 0.88x + 127.03 (R 2 = 0.996) | 40 | 5.50 | y = 0.85x + 130.87 (R² = 0.996) | 22 | 2.97 |
A, B, and C represent comparisons between Evermed and Diasys, Evermed and Hengxiao, and Evermed and Zybio, respectively.