Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.9
3.3
Journals
Diagnostics
Special Issues
Advances in Laboratory Markers of Human Disease—2nd Edition
share announcement

Advances in Laboratory Markers of Human Disease—2nd Edition

A special issue of Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418). This special issue belongs to the section "Clinical Laboratory Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2026 | Viewed by 1080

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Mina Hur

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Interests: biomarkers; transfusion medicine; diagnostic hematology; diagnostic genetics; sepsis; acute kidney injury
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

Current clinical practice largely depends on biomarkers, and emerging biomarkers, as well as conventional biomarkers, are widely used for early detection, risk stratification, and prognosis prediction in a variety of human diseases. Advanced research on laboratory biomarkers is also essential in the realm of translational medicine, bridging basic and clinical fields. I invite outstanding researchers to contribute their excellent studies to this Special Issue. The targeted topics include, but are not limited to, research related to laboratory medicine, from genomic or proteomic studies, molecular diagnostics, clinical chemistry, immunology, hematology, and microbiology, as well digitalized and artificial intelligence-related markers. I believe that this broad collection of research will highlight our current understanding and utility of laboratory markers and form the fundamental basis for further advances in laboratory markers of human disease.

Prof. Dr. Mina Hur
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Diagnostics is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • laboratory biomarkers
  • genomics
  • proteomics
  • molecular diagnostics
  • clinical chemistry

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

15 pages, 8558 KB  
Article
Ensuring HbA1c Accuracy and Variant Detection in Hemoglobin G-Coushatta and Queens Using Variant Mode Analysis
by Yeon Jae Lee, Jong Do Seo, Mi-Hyun Hong, Kyunghoon Lee, Joon Hee Lee, Sun-Hee Jun, Hyung-Doo Park, Junghan Song and Yeo-Min Yun
Diagnostics 2026, 16(9), 1320; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16091320 - 28 Apr 2026
Viewed by 235
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widely used to monitor glycemic control, but the accuracy and flag detection rates of HbA1c assays can vary in the presence of Hb variants such as Hb G-Coushatta (Coushatta) and Hb Queens (Queens), which are common in [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widely used to monitor glycemic control, but the accuracy and flag detection rates of HbA1c assays can vary in the presence of Hb variants such as Hb G-Coushatta (Coushatta) and Hb Queens (Queens), which are common in the Korean population. Methods: We evaluated four HbA1c platforms—Arkray ADAMS HA-8190V (HA-8190V) fast/variant modes; Tosoh HLC-723 G11 (G11) standard/variant modes; Bio-Rad D-100 (D-100); Sebia Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing (Capillarys)—using 33 Hb variant samples (26 Coushatta, 7 Queens). The Roche Tina-quant HbA1c Gen. 3 immunoassay was used as the comparative method. With UPLC-MS/MS used as the reference for variant identification, analytical performance was assessed by calculating mean % differences in HbA1c and evaluating Hb variant flag detection rates. Results: The mean % differences in HbA1c compared to the comparative method were −1.5% and −0.9% for Coushatta and Queens, respectively, with HA-8190V variant mode; −28.4% and −17.6% with HA-8190V fast mode; +33.5% and +2.2% with the G11 variant mode; −28.1% and −14.3% with G11 standard mode; −5.9% and −3.2% with D-100; and +1.0% and −6.2% with Capillarys. For flag detection, rates were 100% and 0% with HA-8190V fast mode; 84.6% and 28.6% with G11 standard mode; and 100% and 100% with all other platforms. Conclusions: Coushatta caused severe underestimation in rapid modes, while Queens hindered automated detection. While variant modes significantly improved detection, they showed platform-dependent accuracy. When Hb variant status is unknown, use of the variant mode is recommended to ensure reliable results. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Laboratory Markers of Human Disease—2nd Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 2142 KB  
Article
Shear-Dependent Agreement and Clinical Reclassification of Whole-Blood Viscosity Measurements: A Paired Comparison of Rheovis 2000A and Hemovister
by Jongho Yi, Hong-Geun Jung, Seoung Joon Lee, Tae-Young Kim, Hahn Young Kim, Kyeong Ryong Lee, Hyun Suk Yang and Mina Hur
Diagnostics 2026, 16(8), 1232; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics16081232 - 20 Apr 2026
Viewed by 512
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Whole-blood viscosity (WBV) is increasingly used in cardiovascular risk assessment; however, inter-device comparability may depend on shear-rate definition. We performed a paired comparison of two scanning capillary viscometers to evaluate shear-dependent analytical agreement and its impact on clinical classification. Methods: [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Whole-blood viscosity (WBV) is increasingly used in cardiovascular risk assessment; however, inter-device comparability may depend on shear-rate definition. We performed a paired comparison of two scanning capillary viscometers to evaluate shear-dependent analytical agreement and its impact on clinical classification. Methods: In 300 identical blood samples, WBV was measured using Rheovis 2000A and Hemovister. Systolic WBV was defined at 300 s−1 for both devices (shear-matched), whereas clinically defined diastolic WBV corresponded to 1 s−1 for Rheovis 2000A and 5 s−1 for Hemovister. Agreement was assessed using linear regression and Bland–Altman analysis. Hematocrit tertiles were examined as effect modifiers. Clinical agreement was evaluated using quadratic weighted Cohen’s κ. Results: Across matched shear rates (1000 to 1 s−1), Hemovister yielded consistently higher WBV values than Rheovis 2000A, with statistically significant inter-device differences at all shear levels except 1000 s−1. The magnitude of bias increased progressively as shear rate decreased, reaching −8.34 mPa·s at 1 s−1. Under shear-matched systolic conditions (300 s−1), the mean difference was −0.25 mPa·s (limits of agreement −1.72 to 1.22). In contrast, under clinically defined diastolic conditions (1 vs. 5 s−1), the mean difference was 14.54 mPa·s (3.93 to 25.15), increasing across hematocrit tertiles. Clinical agreement was fair for systolic (κ = 0.31; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.39) and moderate for diastolic WBV (κ = 0.44; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.51). Notably, among samples classified as high by Hemovister, 72.8% (systolic) and 54.0% (diastolic) were reclassified as normal by Rheovis 2000A. Conclusions: Inter-device agreement in WBV measurement is strongly shear-dependent. Although numerical divergence increases at low shear, categorical concordance may remain moderate when device-specific reference thresholds are applied. Harmonization of shear definitions and reference frameworks may therefore be essential for consistent cross-platform interpretation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Laboratory Markers of Human Disease—2nd Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop