MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052984906 · doi:10.1089/dia.2008.0263

Accuracy of Glycemic Measurements in the Critically Ill

2008· article· en· W2052984906 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlucose meterCritically illArterial bloodGlycemicBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringBlood glucose monitoringAccuracy and precisionPoint of careDiabetes mellitusAnesthesiaInternal medicineContinuous glucose monitoringEndocrinologyPathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence emphasizes the importance of maintaining normoglycemia in critically ill patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Different analytical methods of varying accuracy exist for obtaining and measuring blood glucose in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in blood glucose values measured by whole blood capillary and arterial samples using three different bedside blood glucose meters and a blood gas analyzer as compared to a reference blood glucose analyzer. METHODS: Sixty subjects were recruited from a university hospital medical/surgical intensive care unit. Matching capillary and arterial samples were analyzed by a clinical blood glucose reference analyzer (YSI, Yellow Springs Instrument, Yellow Springs, OH) and three blood glucose meters (Lifescan [Milpitas, CA] SureStepFlexx, Roche [Indianapolis, IN] Accu-Chek Inform, and Abbott [Alameda, CA] FreeStyle). Additionally, the arterial samples were analyzed by a point-of-care blood gas analyzer (Chiron 865, Bayer, Tarrytown, NY). RESULTS: Data analysis included repeated-measures analysis of variance, Consensus Error Grid analysis, Bland-Altman plots, and numerical estimates of inaccuracy. With capillary samples there were high numbers of errors as compared to the reference instrument. Measurement of blood glucose with arterial samples demonstrates a higher degree of accuracy. With arterial samples, the Abbott FreeStyle blood glucose meter and the blood gas analyzer glucose exhibited the lowest median and mean relative absolute deviation. CONCLUSION: In critically ill adult patients, measurement of blood glucose using arterial samples is recommended. Using arterial blood, the Abbott FreeStyle blood glucose meter and the point-of-care blood gas analyzer (Bayer Chiron 865) were shown to be highly accurate instruments to measure arterial blood glucose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it