Pushing the limits of chemistry point-of-care testing for the management of patients under investigation for Ebola virus disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the recent outbreak in West Africa, hospitals worldwide have been developing protocols for suspect of cases of Ebola virus disease. Patients with Ebola virus disease present with a severe gastroenteritis leading to dehydration and electrolyte abnormalities and as such, routine chemistry analysis is essential for patient management. While point-of-care testing can be used with additional precautions for rapid chemistry analyses in a laboratory setting, significant delays could ensue before specimens arrive to the laboratory. This study evaluated the stability of eight chemistry analytes up to 4 h post-collection. METHODS: Blood was collected by venipuncture from 20 healthy volunteers and tested at times 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 240 h. Approximately 100 µl of blood was dispensed into a CHEM 8+Cartridge and processed on a model 300 i-STAT 1 Analyzer (Abbott Point of Care Inc.) and ANOVA was used to assess statistical significant difference from the initial time point. RESULTS: While the manufacturer recommends testing within 30 min of collection, no significant variation was observed for most analytes with time points extending up to 4 h. In contrast, glucose concentrations decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) over time at an average rate of 0.0032 mmol/L per min. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides supporting data suggesting that delays up to 4 h can be tolerated, giving ample time for collection and transport of specimens to the clinical laboratory. For glucose, POC testing could still be used, taking into account the collection time and the average rate of decrease.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".