I should warn Jonathan that - judging from the results of my "Christmas
quiz" - the majority of readers of his piece will have difficulty in
interpreting its content. (What, for example, does he mean by
"ultra-sensitive oestradiol", and how do others interpret this phrase? Also
what does he mean by "Most 'routine' methods in use are not particularly
'sensitive' at low levels (<150pmol/L)." )
Whilst on the subject of linguistics, why use such a synctactically
convoluted phrase as "... to achieve adequate imprecision..." when "..to
achieve adequate precision.." is more appropriate?
Muddled language often betrays, or leads to, muddled concepts and
understanding, though I'm sure this is not true in Jonathan's case.
With regard to the substantive issue he raises, it may be that more than
one assay is required to determine (with acceptable precision) estradiol
concentrations falling within the different ranges he identifies as of
clinical importance. One of the nice things about the "microarray" or
"chip" technology my colleagues and I have been developing with Boehringer
(now Roche) is that assays relating to different concentration ranges can
be put on the same chip. So this is a problem that (hopefully) will not be
with us for ever.
Roger Ekins
Molecular Endocrinology
UCL Medical School
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|