<p> Supplemental Table 3. Comparison of positive % agreement (upper value), negative % agreement (middle value) and overall % agreement (lower value) for the methods. The manufacturer recommended 99th percentiles specified for the respective assays in healthy individuals were used for these analyses. The purpose of this analysis was to examine how frequently the assays yielded different classifications. It is important to note that this study did not have clinical information, so for discordant results it is not possible to determine which method correctly classified individual patients clinically. Data for all comparisons listed here are displayed in Supplemental Table 4. An example for comparison of the cTnT assays is shown in the Table’s inset.</p><p>Method 1 Siemens VISTA Siemens Xpand Siemens Stratus Siemens Centaur Roche hsTnT Roche th Gen 4 TnT Ortho Vitros 3600 Mitsubishi PathFast Beckman Access II Alere Cardio3 Abbott iSTAT Abbott Architect hs Method 2</p><p>Abbott ARCHITECT 94.3 100 96.3 83.6 100 89.4 81.8 95.5 86.6 94.2 98.5 95.7 97.5 77.6 90.5 87.6 90.9 88.8 89.0 98.5 92.4 92.6 98.5 94.7 98.3 90.8 95.7 100 87.8 95.2 76.2 100 84.7 95.1 100 96.8 Abbott ARCHITECT hs 98.3 98.6 98.4 86.3 98.6 91.1 85.3 95.8 89.4 98.3 98.6 98.4 98.3 71.2 87.9 91.4 88.9 90.4 92.9 97.3 94.6 96.6 97.3 96.8 100 87.1 95.2 100 94.6 97.8 79.5 100 87.4</p><p>Abbott iSTAT 100 76.5 88.0 98.9 89.8 94.2 100 90.6 95.2 100 76.0 87.8 100 56.1 77.5 98.9 77.1 87.8 100 82.5 90.9 98.9 76.5 87.4 100 66.0 82.9 83.0 100 89.8</p><p>Alere Cardio3 99.1 93.3 96.8 90.2 98.7 93.6 89.2 95.9 91.9 99.1 93.2 96.8 98.2 68.0 86.1 91.0 85.1 88.6 92.6 92.0 92.3 99.1 94.7 97.3 100 81.9 92.9</p><p>Beckman Access II 91.2 100 94.1 80.0 100 86.6 79.8 96.7 85.4 92.0 100 94.6 97.6 79.0 91.4 87.9 91.8 89.2 86.9 98.4 90.8 89.6 98.4 92.5</p><p>POSITIVE % AGREEMENT NEGATIVE % AGREEMENT TOTAL % AGREEMENT Mitsubishi PathFast 98.3 96.1 97.4 87.8 98.7 92.1 86.0 94.7 89.4 98.2 94.7 96.8 97.4 68.4 85.9 89.5 84.0 87.3 91.0 92.1 91.4</p><p>Ortho Vitros 3600 97.2 90.0 94.1 86.0 92.5 88.8 86.8 92.4 89.2 97.2 89.7 94.1 100 68.8 86.6 95.3 87.3 91.9 Red Type: Example Comparing Roche hsTnT with 4th Gen TnT Method 1 = 4th Gen TnT Method 2 = hsTnT (i) positive-hs & positive-4rt Gen [n=114]; Concordant (ii) negative-hs & negative-4rt Gen [n=54]; Concordant (iii) positive–4rt Gen & negative-hs [n=0]; Discordant (iv) positive-hs & negative-4rt Gen [n=21]; Discordant Positive agreement Method 1 with Method 2: (i) 114 / [(i) 114 + (iii) 0] or 114/114 = 100% Negative agreement: Method 1 with Method 2 : (ii) 54 / [(ii) 54 + (iv) 21] = 54/75= 72% Overall agreement of Method 1 with Method 2: [(i) 114 +(ii) 54] / [(i) 114 +(ii) 54 + (iii) 0 +(iv) 21] = 168/189 = 88.9% Roche 4th Gen TnT 91.2 85.3 88.9 83.3 90.7 86.2 84.2 92.0 87.3 93.0 87.8 91.0 100 72.0 88.9</p><p>Roche hsTnT 83.1 94.5 86.4 74.3 98.2 81.2 74.1 96.3 80.4 84.6 98.1 88.4</p><p>Siemens Centaur 98.3 98.6 98.4 87.1 100 92.1 86.1 95.9 89.9 Siemens Stratus 97.1 81.8 90.0 95.1 94.3 94.7</p><p>Siemens Xpand 100 84.3 92.7</p>