PROBLEMS IN INTERPRETING LABORATORY TESTS What do unexpected results mean?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is always important that physicians not overreact to apparently abnormal laboratory values by undertaking inappropriate further investigations or clinical treatments. When confronted with unexpected differing test results from repeat testing in the same individual, physicians should be aware of explanations other than laboratory error and change in the patient's clinical status. While test-related variables may be factors, intraindividual biologic variation is much more common and may be the explanation for discrepant results. For this reason, physicians need to know which laboratory tests are associated with significant intraindividual biologic variation as well as the magnitude of possible changes. Age-associated physiologic changes may significantly alter certain laboratory values in the elderly without constituting a pathologic process. Laboratory values that may appear abnormal in 10% or more of the healthy elderly without necessarily representing a pathologic process include serum alkaline phosphatase, fasting blood glucose, 2-hour postprandial glucose, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, hemoglobin, and a normal serum creatinine level in the face of a markedly decreased creatinine clearance. To ensure proper assessment of the geriatic patient, the clinician needs to be aware of these age-related changes and possible effects on laboratory values. More clinical research is needed to establish appropriate reference ranges, especially for those over the age of 75 years.
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 | 0.021 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".