MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of the Accutrend for lactate measurement in dogs

2007· article· en· W2063937629 on OpenAlexaff
Connie K. Stevenson, Beverly A. Kidney, Tanya Duke, Elisabeth Snead, Marion L. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalMedicineLimits of agreementBlood lactateNuclear medicineReference valuesCATSAccuracy and precisionInternal medicineAnimal scienceMathematicsBiologyHeart rateStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lactate concentrations are increasingly quantified in dogs using point-of-care instruments, but often without canine-specific method evaluation and instrument-specific reference intervals. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to 1) determine the precision of the Accutrend (Roche Diagnostics) for lactate determination in dogs, 2) determine the accuracy of the Accutrend using the Rapidlab 865 (Bayer Diagnostics) as the reference method, and 3) establish and compare reference intervals for lactate concentration in clinically healthy dogs for both instruments. METHODS: Precision was evaluated using low and high control materials, and variable (1 drop) and fixed (25 microL) sample volumes. Accuracy was determined by comparing lactate concentrations obtained with the Accutrend with those from the Rapidlab 865 in 273 heparinized canine jugular venous blood samples from 100 clinically healthy dogs and 107 systemically ill dogs (173 samples). Lactate reference intervals were established for both analyzers using data from the 100 clinically healthy dogs. RESULTS: The precision of the Accutrend was good (coefficients of variation, < or = 5.3%) for 25-microL samples but not when a drop was used. Lactate concentrations obtained on the Accutrend correlated poorly with those from the Rapidlab 865 (r = 0.864, mean bias = 0.66 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57-0.76 with 95% limits of agreement = -0.87 (lower limit, 95% CI = -1.03 to -0.71) and 2.20 (upper limit, 95% CI = 2.04 to 2.36). The reference interval for canine lactate concentration on the Accutrend was 1.2-3.1 mmol/L compared with 0.46-2.31 mmol/L on the Rapidlab. CONCLUSION: Although precision was good with fixed sample volumes, blood lactate concentrations obtained on the Accutrend were significantly different than those on the Rapidlab 865, with systematic and random errors resulting in a positive bias. Further evaluation of the Accutrend is required before its use in dogs can be recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.533
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.018 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Clinical PathologySame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207