Loading…
Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays
Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. How...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of immunological methods 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3 |
container_end_page | 113297 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 113297 |
container_title | Journal of immunological methods |
container_volume | 507 |
creator | Infantino, Maria Carbone, Teresa Brusca, Ignazio Alessio, Maria-Grazia Previtali, Giulia Platzgummer, Stefan Paura, Giusi Castiglione, Caterina Fabris, Martina Pesce, Giampaola Porcelli, Brunetta Terzuoli, Lucia Bacarelli, Maria-Romana Tampoia, Marilina Cinquanta, Luigi Villalta, Danilo Buzzolini, Francesca Palterer, Boaz Pancani, Silvia Benucci, Maurizio Manfredi, Mariangela Bizzaro, Nicola |
description | Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies.
Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods.
Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity.
Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use.
•Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2675601871</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022175922000849</els_id><sourcerecordid>2675601871</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOHDEQRa2IKAwkH8AG9ZKNJ-VHv5IVGpEQCSWLwNpyl6vBo-k2sd1I8_cxGcKSVZVU516pDmNnAtYCRPN5u976aS1ByrUQSvbtO7YSXSt520N9xFZQLly0dX_MTlLaAoCABj6wY1U3PUBfr5jdLDHSnKtM-DCHXbj3lKoxxMrO2fOrn5f_liG4feWoQNmH-Uv1O9tMPIw8PxC3MVdhrJy393NI2WPlp2mZg03J7tNH9n60u0SfXuYpu_t2dbu55je_vv_YXN5wlJ3KXAy6GzRiD7oZ2lbVVo-d0g5Vj1JbVE4BamgFQNNJrUE5OaBArKF3SKM6ZReH3scY_iyUspl8Qtrt7ExhSUY2bd1A0SMKKg4oxpBSpNE8Rj_ZuDcCzLNZszXFrHk2aw5mS-b8pX4ZJnKvif8qC_D1AFB58slTNAk9zUjOx6LNuODfqP8L5FWJSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2675601871</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola ; on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine ; Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><description>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies.
Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods.
Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity.
Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use.
•Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1759</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35690095</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agreement ; Autoimmune rheumatic diseases ; Cohen's kappa ; Diagnostic accuracy ; ENA ; Immunologic methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of immunological methods, 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35690095$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbone, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusca, Ignazio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Previtali, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platzgummer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paura, Giusi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castiglione, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabris, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, Giampaola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porcelli, Brunetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terzuoli, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tampoia, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinquanta, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villalta, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buzzolini, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palterer, Boaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pancani, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benucci, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzaro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><title>Journal of immunological methods</title><addtitle>J Immunol Methods</addtitle><description>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies.
Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods.
Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity.
Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use.
•Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</description><subject>Agreement</subject><subject>Autoimmune rheumatic diseases</subject><subject>Cohen's kappa</subject><subject>Diagnostic accuracy</subject><subject>ENA</subject><subject>Immunologic methods</subject><issn>0022-1759</issn><issn>1872-7905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtOHDEQRa2IKAwkH8AG9ZKNJ-VHv5IVGpEQCSWLwNpyl6vBo-k2sd1I8_cxGcKSVZVU516pDmNnAtYCRPN5u976aS1ByrUQSvbtO7YSXSt520N9xFZQLly0dX_MTlLaAoCABj6wY1U3PUBfr5jdLDHSnKtM-DCHXbj3lKoxxMrO2fOrn5f_liG4feWoQNmH-Uv1O9tMPIw8PxC3MVdhrJy393NI2WPlp2mZg03J7tNH9n60u0SfXuYpu_t2dbu55je_vv_YXN5wlJ3KXAy6GzRiD7oZ2lbVVo-d0g5Vj1JbVE4BamgFQNNJrUE5OaBArKF3SKM6ZReH3scY_iyUspl8Qtrt7ExhSUY2bd1A0SMKKg4oxpBSpNE8Rj_ZuDcCzLNZszXFrHk2aw5mS-b8pX4ZJnKvif8qC_D1AFB58slTNAk9zUjOx6LNuODfqP8L5FWJSQ</recordid><startdate>20220801</startdate><enddate>20220801</enddate><creator>Infantino, Maria</creator><creator>Carbone, Teresa</creator><creator>Brusca, Ignazio</creator><creator>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creator><creator>Previtali, Giulia</creator><creator>Platzgummer, Stefan</creator><creator>Paura, Giusi</creator><creator>Castiglione, Caterina</creator><creator>Fabris, Martina</creator><creator>Pesce, Giampaola</creator><creator>Porcelli, Brunetta</creator><creator>Terzuoli, Lucia</creator><creator>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creator><creator>Tampoia, Marilina</creator><creator>Cinquanta, Luigi</creator><creator>Villalta, Danilo</creator><creator>Buzzolini, Francesca</creator><creator>Palterer, Boaz</creator><creator>Pancani, Silvia</creator><creator>Benucci, Maurizio</creator><creator>Manfredi, Mariangela</creator><creator>Bizzaro, Nicola</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220801</creationdate><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><author>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agreement</topic><topic>Autoimmune rheumatic diseases</topic><topic>Cohen's kappa</topic><topic>Diagnostic accuracy</topic><topic>ENA</topic><topic>Immunologic methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbone, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusca, Ignazio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Previtali, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platzgummer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paura, Giusi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castiglione, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabris, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, Giampaola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porcelli, Brunetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terzuoli, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tampoia, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinquanta, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villalta, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buzzolini, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palterer, Boaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pancani, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benucci, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzaro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of immunological methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Infantino, Maria</au><au>Carbone, Teresa</au><au>Brusca, Ignazio</au><au>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</au><au>Previtali, Giulia</au><au>Platzgummer, Stefan</au><au>Paura, Giusi</au><au>Castiglione, Caterina</au><au>Fabris, Martina</au><au>Pesce, Giampaola</au><au>Porcelli, Brunetta</au><au>Terzuoli, Lucia</au><au>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</au><au>Tampoia, Marilina</au><au>Cinquanta, Luigi</au><au>Villalta, Danilo</au><au>Buzzolini, Francesca</au><au>Palterer, Boaz</au><au>Pancani, Silvia</au><au>Benucci, Maurizio</au><au>Manfredi, Mariangela</au><au>Bizzaro, Nicola</au><aucorp>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</aucorp><aucorp>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</atitle><jtitle>Journal of immunological methods</jtitle><addtitle>J Immunol Methods</addtitle><date>2022-08-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>507</volume><spage>113297</spage><epage>113297</epage><pages>113297-113297</pages><artnum>113297</artnum><issn>0022-1759</issn><eissn>1872-7905</eissn><abstract>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies.
Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods.
Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity.
Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use.
•Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>35690095</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-1759 |
ispartof | Journal of immunological methods, 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297 |
issn | 0022-1759 1872-7905 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2675601871 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Agreement Autoimmune rheumatic diseases Cohen's kappa Diagnostic accuracy ENA Immunologic methods |
title | Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A06%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current%20technologies%20for%20anti-ENA%20antibody%20detection:%20State-of-the-art%20of%20diagnostic%20immunoassays&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20immunological%20methods&rft.au=Infantino,%20Maria&rft.aucorp=on%20behalf%20of%20the%20Study%20Group%20on%20Autoimmune%20Diseases%20of%20the%20Italian%20Society%20of%20Clinical%20Pathology%20and%20Laboratory%20Medicine&rft.date=2022-08-01&rft.volume=507&rft.spage=113297&rft.epage=113297&rft.pages=113297-113297&rft.artnum=113297&rft.issn=0022-1759&rft.eissn=1872-7905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2675601871%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2675601871&rft_id=info:pmid/35690095&rfr_iscdi=true |