For someone who posts on one stock only,you certainly disappoint...

For someone who posts on one stock only,you certainly disappoint when it comes to research.
One might be forgiven to assume that you are selectively looking for data to support your theorys and basically you have no idea and just buying ADO on a hunch.

In a pilot study done in 1999
it was found that while " A positive troponin I was virtually 100% specific and 100% predictive for a future cardiac event in our study. Yet its negative predictive value was only 50%."
That is 50% of the time, it cleared a person of troponin l, that person went onto have a heart complication.

"Cardiac troponin T, on the other hand, was 100% sensitive in detecting dialysis patients who would have future cardiac events, with a negative predictive value of 100%."
In other words, noone was missed. The problem with Troponin T was it had false positives.
That is there were some people with elevated troponinT that did not go on to have complications.
as explained in the reference you gave from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Troponins Test

Now in my mind, it would be better for a POC test to have false positives that can later be ruled out by more sensitive tests later than to have a POC test that may show negative but have 50% chance of being wrong.
Here is some more research for you, other than what is on Philips website
http://ebm.bmj.com/content/6/1/25.full.pdf
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=-1751515107
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10923557