MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165748167 · doi:10.1373/49.4.624

LOINC, a Universal Standard for Identifying Laboratory Observations: A 5-Year Update

2003· article· en· W2165748167 on OpenAlexaffabout
Clement J. McDonald, Stanley M. Huff, Jeffrey G. Suico, Gilbert Hill, Dennis Leavelle, Raymond D. Aller, Arden W. Forrey, Kathy Mercer, Georges DeMoor, J. N. Hook, Warren G. Williams, James T. Case, Pat Maloney

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsIdentifierHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActComputer scienceWorld Wide WebDatabaseMedicineConfidentialityComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Logical Observation Identifier Names and Codes (LOINC) database provides a universal code system for reporting laboratory and other clinical observations. Its purpose is to identify observations in electronic messages such as Health Level Seven (HL7) observation messages, so that when hospitals, health maintenance organizations, pharmaceutical manufacturers, researchers, and public health departments receive such messages from multiple sources, they can automatically file the results in the right slots of their medical records, research, and/or public health systems. For each observation, the database includes a code (of which 25 000 are laboratory test observations), a long formal name, a "short" 30-character name, and synonyms. The database comes with a mapping program called Regenstrief LOINC Mapping Assistant (RELMA(TM)) to assist the mapping of local test codes to LOINC codes and to facilitate browsing of the LOINC results. Both LOINC and RELMA are available at no cost from http://www.regenstrief.org/loinc/. The LOINC medical database carries records for >30 000 different observations. LOINC codes are being used by large reference laboratories and federal agencies, e.g., the CDC and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and are part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) attachment proposal. Internationally, they have been adopted in Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, and Canada, and by the German national standards organization, the Deutsches Instituts für Normung. Laboratories should include LOINC codes in their outbound HL7 messages so that clinical and research clients can easily integrate these results into their clinical and research repositories. Laboratories should also encourage instrument vendors to deliver LOINC codes in their instrument outputs and demand LOINC codes in HL7 messages they get from reference laboratories to avoid the need to lump so many referral tests under the "send out lab" code.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0190.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.012

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations580
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207