Evaluation of the Roche Cobas Argos 5Diff automated haematology analyser with comparison to a Coulter STKS
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
The performance of the Roche Cobas Argos 5Diff (Argos) automated haematology analyser was evaluated by comparison to manual blood film examination and a Coulter STKS (STKS) analyser. The Argos demonstrated excellent between and inter-batch imprecision for all parameters, except the MCHC, and good linearity for Hb, WBC and platelet count (PLT). After an initial fall the PLT, results were stable for up to six h at 18 degrees C in EDTA(K3) after which an increasing proportion of cells were classified as lymphocytes. Results of 239 patient samples analysed on both instruments, compared by linear regression, gave excellent correlation (r2 > 0.90) for most parameters with the exceptions of the MCHC (0.317), eosinophils% (0.756), monocytes% (0.48) and basophils% (0.002). 'Flagging' of cellular abnormalities by the Argos resulted in excellent sensitivity (97.5%), specificity (93.2%) and efficiency/agreement (93.2%), with fewer false positive and negative results than the STKS, although these differences were not statistically significant. The performance characteristics of the Argos were comparable to those of the STKS with a possible improvement in its flagging abilities.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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