False-positive results

The advantage of this test is that it is quick and easy to do, and gives an indication of biodegradation potential. However, the test is not definitive, because any impurities in the plastic, such as plasticizers and solvents, may interfere with the test by promoting growth, and thus give false positive results. 

Babson proposed a-naphthyl phosphate as an essentially specific substrate for the activity of prostatic acid phosphatase in serum (104). However Marshall, Price, and Amador found that this substrate is not specific for the prostatic enzyme because urine of human females contain 50 times more acid a-naphthyl phosphatase than male serum and 50% as much activity as male urine. Platelets have significant activity and the serum activity can increase to abnormal values following clotting. These workers also observed elevated activities in females with skeletal metastases of the breast. In 50 hospitalized male patients who had no evidence of prostatic cancer and 25 hospitalized female patients, the incidence of false positive results was 12%, a magnitude sufficient to preclude meaningful clinical interpretation (105). 

Drugs can also Interfere with laboratory results by negating certain nonspecific oxidation and reduction reactions essential for the chemical assay. Penicillin, streptomycin and ascorbic acid are known to react with cupric Ion thus, false positive results for glucose may occur If a copper reduction method Is used. If the specific enzymatic glucose-oxidase method Is employed, ascorbic acid can cause a false negative result by preventing the oxidation of a specific chromogen In the reaction. 

A systematic study was carried out using in parallel 50 standard solutions for each concentration of three natural colorants (curcumin, carminic acid, and caramel as yellow, red, and brown, respectively). No false positive results for synthetics were obtained up to concentrations of 15 and 20 ng/ml for natural red and yellow colorants, respectively, or 110 ng/ml for natural brown colorant. The concentrations have to be high enough to prove that the screening method is able to accurately discriminate natural and synthetic colorants. To make a clear interpretation of the quantitative UV-Vis spectrum, linear regression analysis was used. Quantitative UV-Vis analysis of a dye ° can be calculated according to the following formula ... 

Pretreatment of hair samples also includes an extraction, usually with an alkaline sodium hydroxide solution, followed by cleaning up with LLE with n-hexane/ethyl acetate. Instead of LLE, the employment of SPE is also possible. Furthermore, the solid phase microextraction (SPME) in combination with head-space analysis is usable [104-106]. In the case of using hair samples, possible external contamination (e.g., by passive smoking of Cannabis) has to be considered as false positive result. False positive results can be avoided by washing of the hair samples previous to extraction [107]. Storage of collected samples is another important fact that can cause false results in their content of A9-THC and metabolites [108-110]. 

Structurally related compounds may cross-react with the antibody, yielding inaccurate results. In screening for the herbicide alachlor in well water by immunoassay, a number of false positives were reported when compared with gas chromatography (GC) analysis. A metabolite of alachlor was found to be present in the samples and it was subsequently determined that the cross-reactivity by this metabolite accounted for the false-positive results. On the other hand, cross-reactivity by certain structural analogs may not be an issue. For example, in an assay for the herbicide atrazine, cross-reactivity by propazine is 196% because of atrazine and propazine field use... 

An assay or screen is said to exhibit ROBUSTNESS when it has a high discriminatory power and produces a low number of FALSE NEGATIVE and FALSE POSITIVE results. 

Recent innovations for detecting malaria include DNA or RNA probes by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). These, however, are not widely available for clinical use. A rapid dipstick test (ParaSight F, Becton-Dickinson, Cockeyville, MD) reportedly has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 97%, which is comparable to microscopy. However, ParaSight F can give false-positive results with rheumatoid factor thus microscopy remains the optimal test. 

Clinical and analytical interpretation of false-negative and false-positive results. 

False-positive results with bDNA have been observed with proficiency testing specimens for HTV-1 in the College of American Pathologists HIV-1 viral load survey and HCV in the viral quality control program administered by the Netherlands Red Cross. The reason for the false-positive results with these proficiency testing specimens is not known but may be sample matrix effects. The extent to which this problem occurs with clinical samples has not been determined. However, both the HIV-1 and HCV bDNA assays were designed to have a false-positive rate of 5%. 

Nevertheless, caution must be taken to avoid any false IHC negative or false positive results after AR treatment. It should be emphasized that additional biochemical assays other than IHC need to be adopted in order to validate the AR-IHC results whenever necessary. Otherwise, as pointed out by Wick and Mills, there is a real risk that artifacts may become facts. 25... 

Blood Cholinesterase activity Rapid, available in the field Does not identify the OP False positive results Only relatively high levels of activity depression are detectable... 

Matrix effect is a phrase normally used to describe the effect of some portion of a sample matrix that causes erroneous assay results if care is not taken to avoid the problem or correct for it by some mechanism. The most common matrix effects are those that result in ion suppression and subsequent false negative results. Ion enhancement may lead to false positive results.126 127 Several reports about matrix effects include suggestions on what can cause them and how to avoid them.126-147 While various ways to detect matrix effects have been reported, Matuszewski et al.140 described a clear way to measure the matrix effect (ME) for an analyte, recovery (RE) from the extraction procedure, and overall process efficiency (PE) of a procedure. Their method is to prepare three sets of samples and assay them using the planned HPLC/MS/MS method. The first set is the neat solution standards diluted into the mobile phase before injection to obtain the A results. The second set is the analyte spiked into the blank plasma extract (after extraction) to obtain the B results. The third set is the analyte spiked into the blank plasma before the extraction step (C results) these samples are extracted and assayed along with the two other sets. The three data sets allow for the following calculations ... 

Although most pharmaceutical statisticians and toxicologists agree on the need to control the probability of false positive results, there is no consensus as to which method is most appropriate or most acceptable to regulatory agencies, The FDA and other such agencies will accept a variety of statistical procedures but will often reanalyze the data and draw their own conclusions based on their analyses. 

In genetics, an even simpler-appearing formula for Bayes theorem is sometimes used. The numerator is the same, but the denominator is merely p 1+). This makes sense because the denominator in a/(a + b) is equal to all of those who have positive test results, whether they are true-positive or false-positive results. 

---