Biologic quality control variability among pulmonary function testing systems across British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia's Diagnostic Accreditation Program (DAP) is responsible for accrediting 27 pulmonary function laboratories (PFLs) representing 45 testing systems throughout the Canadian province. The ATS/ERS recommends BioQC testing but do not specify target standard deviation (SD) or coefficient of variation (CV) per testing system or across muliple sites. The DAP set target SD (2SD) and CVs based on published citations and expert opinions. The purpose of this study is to review the average CVs across all of their sites to verify these targets were appropriately set and provide data for other PF labs. Methodology: We analyzed key variables in PF testing across all laboratories for a 12 month period to characterize the CVs of the systems. DAP target CVs: FVC, FEV1<3; TLC, FRC, DLCO, VA <5 Mean BioQC CVs across 27 Laboratories FVC FEV1 TLC FRC DLCO VA 1.73 1.97 2.04 3.58 4.26 2.08 It is recommended that PFLs perform BioQC testing on a regular basis and although there are published data describing PF test variability using mechanical simulators 1 and in patient DLCO 2 there are little data demonstrating the variability in normal biologic subjects. Such data are critical in implementing a BioQC quality assurance (QA) program. The DAP's PF laboratory QA program includes target BioQC SD and CV for their accredited laboratories. These results across the 27 laboratories in the province are also using a variety of instrumentation and software versions. The values we provided can be used as reference values for other laboratories in establishing their BioQC variability. 1. Chest 2007; 132:pg 388 2. Chest 2003; 123:pg 1082.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".