CNF Encodings of Parity

The minimum number of clauses in a CNF representation of the parity function $x_1 \oplus x_2 \oplus \dotsb \oplus x_n$ is $2^{n-1}$. One can obtain a more compact CNF encoding by using non-deterministic variables (also known as guess or auxiliary variables). In this paper, we prove the following lower bounds, that almost match known upper bounds, on the number $m$ of clauses and the maximum width $k$ of clauses: 1) if there are at most $s$ auxiliary variables, then $m \ge \Omega\left(2^{n/(s+1)}/n\right)$ and $k \ge n/(s+1)$; 2) the minimum number of clauses is at least $3n$. We derive the first two bounds from the Satisfiability Coding Lemma due to Paturi, Pudlak, and Zane

Comparison between BNP values measured in capillary blood samples with a POCT method and those measured in plasma venous samples with an automated platform

Letter to the Editor. Our data suggest that it is possible to measure BNP in fresh finger-stick samples of capillary whole blood with an acceptable reproducibility, and within 10 – 20 min to obtain results close correlated to those measured by the automated platform in plasma blood samples collected from a vein. The measurement of BNP in fresh finger-stick samples of capillary whole blood with this POCT method is in particular indicated for the management of HF patients at home and for the BNP assay in neonates and children

State of the art of aldosterone immunoassays. A multicenter collaborative study on the behalf of the Cardiovascular Biomarkers Study Group of the Italian Section of European Society of Ligand Assay (ELAS) and Società Italiana di Biochimica Clinica (SIBIOC).

Background: Two newimmunoassay methods for aldosterone assay using automated platforms recently became available into market. The main aim of the present study is to evaluate the analytical performance of these automated direct immunoassay methods, and also to compare their analytical characteristics to those of the most popular RIA and EIA methods used in an Italian External Quality Assessment (EQA) study. Methods: In this study analytical performances of twoaldosterone immunoassays using the IDS iSYS and DiaSorin LIAISON fully automated platforms, were evaluated. Results obtained with the two platforms in EDTA plasma samples of healthy subjects and patients were compared with those obtained by RIA and EIA methods used in the Italian EQA scheme, named Immunocheck study. Results: The two automated methods showed similar analytical performances: LoD 83.9 vs 92.2 pmol/L, LoQ 104.4 vs 111.1 pmol/L, respectively; moreover, the within-run and total imprecision values showed CV% between 8.1 and 14.1 for samples with 180.8 and 387.2 pmol/L concentration for both methods. There was a close linear regression between methods, however we found a significant proportional bias between LIAISON and iSYS methods. The EQA samples results obtainedwith these two methods were highly correlated to the consensus mean values. Conclusions: Our data indicate that aldosterone values measuredwith the two automated methods actually show better reproducibility, shorter laboratory Turn Around Time (TAT) and require less “hands on labor” compared to RIA and EIA immunoassays. However, in our study significant biaswas observed in result comparison, this means that translating aldosterone concentration in clinical information an appropriate definition of reference ranges for each method is mandatory