MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142311885 · doi:10.1111/apa.12438

Estimating reliable paediatric reference intervals in clinical chemistry and haematology

2013· review· en· W2142311885 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Ridefelt, Dan Hellberg, Mattias Aldrimer, Jan Gustafsson

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Very few high-quality studies on paediatric reference intervals for general clinical chemistry and haematology analytes have been performed. Three recent prospective community-based projects utilising blood samples from healthy children in Sweden, Denmark and Canada have substantially improved the situation. CONCLUSION: The present review summarises current reference interval studies for common clinical chemistry and haematology analyses.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa PaediatricaSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207