Evaluation of Different Disinfectants on the Performance of an On-Meter Dosed Amperometric Glucose-Oxidase-Based Glucose Meter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Off-meter dosed photometric glucose-oxidase-based glucose meters have been reported to be susceptible to interference by hydrogen-peroxide-based disinfecting agents. The objective of this study was to determine if a single application of hydrogen-peroxide-containing Accel® wipe to disinfect an on-meter dosed amperometric glucose-oxidase-based glucose meter will influence its performance. METHOD: The performance of five on-meter dosed amperometric glucose-oxidase-based glucose meters was determined before and after disinfecting the devices with a single application of either CaviWipes® (14.3% isopropanol and 0.23% diisobutyl-phenoxy-ethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride) or Accel (0.5% hydrogen peroxide) wipes. Replicate glucose measurements were conducted before disinfecting the devices, immediately after disinfecting, and then 1 and 2 min postdisinfecting, with measurements in triplicate. Analysis was sequentially completed for five different meters. Results were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance (Analyze-it software). RESULTS: No clinical (<0.3 mmol/liter) or statistical differences (p > .05) in glucose concentration were detected when the on-meter dosed amperometric glucose-oxidase-based glucose meters were disinfected with either CaviWipes or Accel wipes and measured immediately or 1 or 2 min postdisinfecting. No clinically significant difference in glucose concentration was detected between meters (<0.3 mmol/liter). CONCLUSION: The on-meter dosed glucose oxidase amperometric-based glucose meters are not analytically susceptible to interference by a single application of hydrogen-peroxide-containing Accel disinfectant wipes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".