Evaluation of two point‐of‐care analysers for measurement of fructosamine or haemoglobin A1c in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of glycosylated proteins such as fructosamine and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) can be used to assess glycaemic control in canine diabetic patients. Two point-of-care analysers, designed for human diabetics, were evaluated for use in dogs. Blood samples were collected from 50 normoglycaemic dogs, 100 diabetic patients and five dogs with insulinoma and tested using the In Charge fructosamine meter and the Haemaquant/Glycosal HbA1c meter. Readings were obtained in all cases except for 21 of 50 diabetics, which were above the upper limit of the In Charge meter. Diabetic dogs had higher fructosamine and HbA1c concentrations compared to controls. However, there was poor agreement between the In Charge meter readings and serum fructosamine concentrations, suggesting that there are problems associated with the use of this device in dogs. HbA1c concentrations showed a high degree of correlation with glycosylated haemoglobin measured at an external laboratory, suggesting that the Haemaquant/Glycosal meter warrants further evaluation for veterinary use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".