Validation of the Coulter AcT Diff Hematology Analyzer for Analysis of Blood of Common Domestic Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare and assess the agreement between the Coulter AcT Diff hematology analyzer (CAD) and the Bayer Technicon H1 (H1) using blood samples from 391 animals of 4 species. The H1 has been used in veterinary laboratories for many years. Recently, Coulter modified the CAD and added veterinary software for hematologic analysis of feline, canine, and equine samples. A comparison of hemograms from dogs, cats, horses, and cattle was made using EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples. Both instruments were calibrated using human blood products. Performance characteristics were excellent for most values. The exceptions were MCV in canine samples (concordance correlation of.710), platelet counts for feline and equine samples (.258 and.740, respectively), feline and bovine WBC counts (.863 and.857, respectively), and bovine hemoglobin (.876).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".