Elizabeth T. Leary
United States Department of Agriculture
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Elizabeth T. Leary.
Clinical Chemistry | 2010
W. Greg Miller; Gary L. Myers; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Lorin M. Bachmann; Samuel P. Caudill; Andrzej Dziekonski; Selvin Edwards; Mary M. Kimberly; William J. Korzun; Elizabeth T. Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakazu Nakamura; Göran Nilsson; Robert D. Shamburek; George W. Vetrovec; G. Russell Warnick; Alan T. Remaley
BACKGROUND Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS We performed each direct method according to the manufacturers instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.
Clinical Chemistry | 2011
Hendrick E. van Deventer; W. Greg Miller; Gary L. Myers; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Lorin M. Bachmann; Samuel P. Caudill; Andrzej Dziekonski; Selvin Edwards; Mary M. Kimberly; William J. Korzun; Elizabeth T. Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakazu Nakamura; Robert D. Shamburek; George W. Vetrovec; G. Russell Warnick; Alan T. Remaley
BACKGROUND Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturers direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS For participants with triglycerides<2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and<4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.
Labmedicine | 2008
G. Russell Warnick; Mary M. Kimberly; Parvin P. Waymack; Elizabeth T. Leary; Gary L. Myers
This review evaluates the status of standardization of lipids and lipoproteins. Prerequisites and some basic principles for standardization are provided. The reference systems for cholesterol, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I), apolipoprotein B (apoB), and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) are described. Brief descriptions of the standardization programs available for each of these analytes are also provided. Finally, the review addresses some of the challenges in standardizing these markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The standardization programs described have contributed to improvements in laboratory measurements of lipids and lipoproteins. Our intention is that clinical laboratory professionals and manufacturers of in vitro diagnostics will use these resources to standardize lipid and lipoprotein measurements. Manufacturers must take the initiative to thoroughly evaluate their products and ensure traceability to the reference systems.
Clinical Chemistry | 1998
Elizabeth T. Leary; Tao Wang; Daniel J. Baker; Donald D. Cilla; Jianhua Zhong; G. Russell Warnick; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Richard J. Havel
Clinical Chemistry | 1999
Mary M. Kimberly; Elizabeth T. Leary; Thomas G. Cole; Parvin P. Waymack
Clinical Chemistry | 1999
Tao Wang; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Elizabeth T. Leary; G. Russ Warnick; Jeffrey S. Cohn; Paul N. Hopkins; Lily L. Wu; Donald D. Cilla; Jianhua Zhong; Richard J. Havel
Journal of Lipid Research | 2000
Caroline Marcoux; Paul N. Hopkins; Tao Wang; Elizabeth T. Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Jean Davignon; Jeffrey S. Cohn
Clinical Chemistry | 1997
Judith R. McNamara; Elizabeth T. Leary; Ferruccio Ceriotti; Christa M. Boersma-Cobbaert; Thomas G. Cole; David J. Hassemer; Masakazu Nakamura; Christopher J. Packard; David W. Seccombe; Mary M. Kimberly; Gary L. Myers; Gerald R. Cooper
Clinical Chemistry | 2000
William L. Roberts; Elizabeth T. Leary; Thomas L. Lambert; Linda Moulton; Janice L. Goestch
Preventive Medicine | 1996
Judith R. McNamara; G. Russell Warnick; Elizabeth T. Leary; Ellison H. Wittels; Forrest E. Nelson; Mary F. Pearl; Ernst J. Schaefer