MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097435520 · doi:10.1373/49.1.186

Fast Colorimetric Method for Measuring Urinary Iodine

2003· article· en· W2097435520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Gnat, ANN D. DUNN, Samar Chaker, François Delange, Françoise Vertongen, John T. Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIodineColorimetryUrinary systemChromatographyChemistryMedicineInternal medicineOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International groups recommend the following median urinary iodine concentration as the best single indicator of iodine nutrition in populations: severe deficiency, 0–0.15 μmol/L (0–19 μg/L); moderate deficiency, 0.16–0.38 μmol/L (20–49 μg/L); mild deficiency, 0.40–0.78 μmol/L (50–99 μg/L); optimal iodine nutrition, 0.79–1.56 μmol/L (100–199 μg/L); more than adequate iodine intake, 1.57–2.36 μmol/L (200–299 μg/L); and excessive iodine intake, ≥2.37 μmol/L (≥300 μg/L) (1). The range in which the median falls is more important than the precise number (2)(3). Many methods for assessing urinary iodine exist (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8), most based on the Sandell–Kolthoff reaction (9), in which iodide catalyzes the reduction of ceric ammonium sulfate (yellow) to the colorless cerous form in the presence of arsenious acid. Although iodide is the chemical form for both the catalytic reaction and in urine, some preliminary treatment is needed to rid urine of impurities, most commonly by acid digestion (3)(5). We have extended previous approaches (5)(6)(10) with improved conditions and here present a new method (“Fast B”) that is rapid, inexpensive, reliable, and flexible.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.014

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207