English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We compared the performance of three methods for quantifying high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) with the Reference Method for HDL-C, using samples with a wide range of triglyceride (TG) concentrations (290-18000 mg/L). All three comparison assays-- utilizing a magnetic dextran sulfate precipitating reagent, a direct method, and a standard MgCl2-dextran sulfate reagent--were precise, with a run-to-run CV of less than or equal to 4.1%. However, the systematic error of these assays exceeded the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) performance goal of less than or equal to 10% in half of the concentration ranges tested. Nevertheless, the total error of the assays generally meets the current 22% limit set by the NCEP. Although both the magnetic dextran sulfate precipitation reagent and the direct assay can be performed more rapidly than the MgCl2-dextran sulfate assay, the direct assay involves no sample preparation and requires only 4 microL of sample excluding the dead space. Although precipitation is frequently inadequate with the MgCl2-dextran sulfate reagent at TG concentrations >6000 mg/L, both the magnetic and the direct reagent show no interference from high TG concentrations as great as 18 000 mg/L.

Three routine methods for measuring high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with the Reference Method