{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02977346278317152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025889967637540454, 'mean_word_length': 4.790262172284645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessment of Nova Biomedical StatStrip® Glucose Meters and Test Strips in Rodent Glucose Studies

Preclinical blood glucose testing methods have relied largely on human consumer market technology. The FDA accuracy requirement for consumer meters of +/−20% is not ideal for research. The StatStrip Xpress GLU meter (Nova Biomedical) is only marketed for use in hospital settings. An “investigational use only” meter with a range to 900mg/dL is now available through DSI. The StatStrip system is immune to common interferents such as ascorbic acid and acetaminophen and also measures and corrects for hematocrit levels in the blood; consumer meters do not. The AlphaTrak (Abbott) meter is specifically marketed for preclinical use and has demonstrated higher accuracy in animal models than consumer meters. The present study compares both systems to the model AU480 (Beckman Coulter) clinical analyzer. Two measurements were made with each of the systems on blood samples from both normal and diabetic ZDSD rats (N=98). The results showed the AlphaTrak to have a bias of −9.0% relative to the AU480 across a range of glucose from 100–600mg/dL with a zero crossing of +7.8mg/dL, while the StatStrip had a bias of 3.6% relative to the AU480 with a zero crossing of −10.1mg/dL. The R2 value was slightly better for the StatStrip readings at 0.993 versus 0.966 for the AlphaTrak. Overall, the StatStrip system provided more accurate data than the AlphaTrak system and data nearly equivalent to the clinical analyzer over the range of glucose studied.