<scp>ICSH</scp> guidelines for the verification and performance of automated cell counters for body fluids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the many challenges facing laboratories is the verification of their automated Complete Blood Count cell counters for the enumeration of body fluids. These analyzers offer improved accuracy, precision, and efficiency in performing the enumeration of cells compared with manual methods. A patterns of practice survey was distributed to laboratories that participate in proficiency testing in Ontario, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan to determine the number of laboratories that are testing body fluids on automated analyzers and the performance specifications that were performed. Based on the results of this questionnaire, an International Working Group for the Verification and Performance of Automated Cell Counters for Body Fluids was formed by the International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH) to prepare a set of guidelines to help laboratories plan and execute the verification of their automated cell counters to provide accurate and reliable results for automated body fluid counts. These guidelines were discussed at the ICSH General Assemblies and reviewed by an international panel of experts to achieve further consensus.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it