Properties and units in the clinical laboratory sciences. X. Properties and units in general clinical chemistry (Technical Report) (IFCC-IUPAC 1999)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synopsis: A coding scheme has been prepared for general clinical chemistry. Preface The present document is part ten (X) of a series on properties and units in the clinical laboratory sciences initiated in 1987. > View series titles (view corresponding project) The size and complexity of parts III and IV are such that their lists will be presented in electronic format. This is for ease of handling and to facilitate expression of concepts in different languages. At the end, systematic terms, elaborated according to international standards and recommendations should be available in the different domains of clinical laboratory sciences. The core of the series is code value strings representing concepts, that in combination delineate and define each type of property regardless of linguistic expression, thus avoiding errors during translation between languages. Foreword and Scope Clinical Laboratory Sciences are characterised by the exacting nature of the work performed and the demand for an accurate presentation of the outcome. Further the domain is transnational, international or "global". The adherent informatics system therefore needs to identify the findings accurately and to present them with the degree of detail required. At the same time it has to facilitate the transfer over linguistic and cultural barriers without distortion or loss of clarity, in order to promote clear, unambiguous, meaningful and fully informative communication in different terminologies. The degree to which a message (such as a laboratory report) needs to be expressed in a formal, systematic language depends on the geographical, linguistic, social or professional distance between the communicating parties. The greater the distance, the greater the risk of misunderstanding. Within one laboratory, local jargon terms may be used which are usually well understood between colleagues, but which would not be sufficiently widely known for communication with the outside world. Likewise, a laboratory and its local community of users, such as hospital or community physicians, may use a "local dialect" of the language of laboratory medicine which is well understood by all concerned; but when the communication possibilities are wider, even transnational, risks of serious misunderstanding arise. The purpose of this document is to apply the IFCC-IUPAC recommended syntax structures for request and report and to create a systematic terminology which can be used as the basis for encoding laboratory messages in the domain of general clinical chemistry. This is to facilitate communication of messages about such properties through computing and telecommunication between databases, messages that contain sufficient information to allow translation from and to the required "local dialect" at each end. Each entry in the list is formed following the rules given in part I and part XI of the series. The systematic names recommended here are primarily for the purpose of unambiguous data exchange. Their use in routine language by clinician or laboratory practitioners is optional but encouraged.
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 | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.059 |
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".