Profiency testing in reticulocyte counting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program tests and evaluates proficiency of clinical laboratories in Ontario, Canada. The programme began in 1974; testing of reticulocyte counts was added in 1982. From the beginning, the goal of the programme has been to ensure that the quality of practice in Ontario laboratories facilitates good quality patient care. Testing of indirect counting methods for reticulocytes is accomplished by the distribution of stained blood films. Performance is expressed in terms of accuracy and precision. Proficiency is assessed by comparing submitted results to an all-methods' mean and result reliability by observing the coefficient of variation (CV) of the cohort. The quality of the results vary neither with the manual counting system used nor the type of laboratory. The CV commonly ranges from 25 to 30%, and this lack of accuracy appears to be inherent in the technology of manual reticulocyte counting. We conclude that manual reticulocyte counting is technologically obsolete but may be of clinical value if used in a qualitative fashion. It should probably be replaced by an automated method.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".