Canadian Laboratory Initiative on Pediatric Reference Interval Database (CALIPER): Pediatric reference intervals for an integrated clinical chemistry and immunoassay analyzer, Abbott ARCHITECT ci8200

Population-based pediatric reference intervals for general clinical chemistry analytes on the Abbott Architect ci8200 instrument

“…An exception is calcium where adults have a reference interval of 2.15 -2.51 mmol/L, and the children, 1 -18 years, 2.32 -2.67 mmol/L. Children under the age of 1 year have higher calcium levels, and in both this study and previous ones it has been shown that there are only marginal changes between 1 and 18 years of age (3,17,24) . A shift between older teenagers and adult reference intervals has been described for ionized calcium (17) .…”

The Canadian laboratory initiative on pediatric reference intervals: A CALIPER white paper

“…hospital outpatients rather than healthy community children and adolescents, and the recommended number of 120 subjects per group was not always achieved, particularly in the birth-12 month age partition [4]. Subsequently, four additional pilot studies were performed.…”

“…Initially, 15 immunoassays and 24 chemistries were analyzed using the Abbott ARCHITECT ci8200 platform (Abbott Instruments -Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, IL), with results published in 2009 [4]. Pediatric reference intervals were established for five age partitions: birth-12 months, 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-14 years, and 15-18 years [4]. However, these age partitions were chosen arbitrarily rather than by using a statistical test, samples were collected from Schematic of establishing reference intervals using the direct method.…”

Pediatric Within-Day Biological Variation and Quality Specifications for 38 Biochemical Markers in the CALIPER Cohort

“…First, previous CALIPER studies have determined that, for the creation of reference intervals, certain analytes (e.g., creatinine, albumin, and ALT) show sex differences and, therefore, must be partitioned accordingly (7,16,27 ). However, due to sample size limitations, we were unable to assess the appropriateness of partitioning CV I and CV G by sex.…”