Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red blood cell morphology (RBC-M) reporting is a routine requirement for hospital laboratories when reporting complete blood counts. However, there is little evidence that RBC-M reporting is useful to pediatric clinicians. We surveyed pediatric hematology specialists and nonspecialists at the BC Children's Hospital (Vancouver, Canada), to evaluate the perceived clinical utility of this reporting. Although a large majority of pediatric clinicians refer to RBC-M reports in their clinical practice, less than half consider these reports to be clinically useful. Hematology specialists were more likely than nonspecialists to identify individual RBC-M descriptions as clinically useful. Some RBC-M descriptions, such as anisocytosis, were considered not useful by specialists and by nonspecialists. A large proportion of nonspecialist respondents noted that they did not know the clinical significance of some of the RBC-M terms. Educational initiatives to inform nonspecialists about the clinical significance of some RBC-M descriptions should be considered. A few RBC-M descriptions are not clinically useful to either specialists or nonspecialists, and these could be omitted from RBC-M reports as a step toward improved hematology laboratory reporting.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".