Comparison of a human portable glucometer and an automated chemistry analyzer for measurement of blood glucose concentration in pet ferrets (Mustela putorius furo).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared blood glucose concentrations measured with a portable blood glucometer and a validated laboratory analyzer in venous blood samples of 20 pet ferrets (Mustela putorius furo). Correlation and agreement were evaluated with a Bland-Altman plot method and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. Blood glucose concentrations measured with the laboratory analyzer and the glucometer ranged from 1.9 to 8.6 mmol/L and from 0.9 to 9.2 mmol/L, respectively. The glucometer had a poor agreement and correlation with the laboratory analyzer (bias, -0.13 mmol/L; level of agreement, -2.0 to 3.6 mmol/L, concordance correlation coefficient 0.665). The relative sensitivity and specificity of the portable blood glucometer for detection of hypoglycemia were 100% (95% CI: 66% to 100%) and 50% (95% CI: 20% to 80%), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 67% (95% CI: 39% to 87%) and 100% (95% CI: 46% to 100%), respectively. Based on these results, clinicians are advised to be cautious when considering the results from this handheld glucometer in pet ferrets, and blood glucose concentrations should be determined with a laboratory analyzer validated for this species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".