EVALUATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT SERVICE 2008 (UK NEQAS 2008) GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE USING SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC XANTHOCHROMIA: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Evaluation of the UK NEQAS 2008 guidelines for the interpretation of spectrophotometric xanthochromia. Method A search of the laboratory database for all the xanthochromia test results between May 1st 2008 and May 1st 2009 was performed. Medical charts were reviewed for patients of ôpital de l’Enfant-Jésus (HEJ) that had at least one detectable pigment (bilirubin, oxyhemoglobin, or methemoglobin). Xanthochromia results obtained with 4 different criteria (Chalmers original, Modified Chalmers, Duiser and UK NEQAS 2008) were compared. Results We reviewed 41 medical charts (2 patients with duplicate lumbar punctures (LP) for a total of 43 LP). For these 41 patients there were 11 positive xanthochromia results, 5 of which were in concordance with a final diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The diagnosis of the 6 other positive xanthochromia results were as follow: meningeal spread of a lymphoma, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, exertional headache, viral encephalitis with a possibility of petechiaes on the cerebral CT and second LP. Interpretation (negative/positive) of 40/43 LP was identical for the 4 methods. 2 LP were positive with Duiser and UK NEQAS 2008 but negative with Chalmers approaches (final diagnosis: SAH and cerebral amyloid angiopathy). 1 LP was positive only by the Duiser method (viral encephalitis). Conclusions UK NEQAS 2008 guidelines identified all SAH but are sensitive to traumatic and pathologic meningeal lesions. Except for a case of viral encephalitis with a suspicion of cerebral petechiaes on CT, UK NEQAS 2008 gave xanthochromia results similar to the one in use at HEJ (Duiser). Chalmers original and Modified Chalmers methods missed one of the five SAH.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".