Comparison study between RBC folate measured by microbiologic assay and Immulite 2000 immunoassay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant inter‐laboratory differences exist in values obtained for RBC folate (RBF). The objective of this methods comparison study was to generate a conversion equation that describes the relationship between RBF measured by the Immulite 2000 immunoassay and the microbiologic assay (MA). Blood was drawn from 152 healthy participants in Toronto, Canada. Folate concentrations were determined by MA (chloramphenicol‐resistant microorganism [L. Rhamnosus], calibrated with 5‐methyltetrahydrofolate) at The Hospital for Sick Children and by the Immulite 2000 immunoassay at the Health Canada Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) laboratory. A Pearson's coefficient, r, of 0.67 guided the decision to use weighted Deming regression, which accounts for random error of both X and Y and controls for proportional bias. The final weighted Deming regression model was as follows: Predicted microbiologic assay = −22.95 + 0.81*Immunoassay. For validation, the whole sample was randomly split into two groups: 1) estimation 2) validation. The same mean absolute percentage error was obtained in the validation group as in the entire sample set (23%), indicating robustness in the precision of the model's predicted values. This equation will be used to compare the RBF data from the CHMS to the US NHANES (measured by Immulite 2000 immunoassay and MA, respectively). Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes for Health Research Fellowship (180375) to C.K.C and Operating Grant (218776) to M.S.T, D.L.O and C.K.C
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".