External Quality Assessment in the Examination of Blood Films for Malarial Parasites Within Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess laboratory practice in the examination of blood films for malarial parasites. METHOD: Ontario medical laboratories, licensed by the Ministry of Health, are required to participate in external quality assessment by the Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program, which assesses performance of laboratory assays and also examines the total testing process. Educational strategies are used to improve performance. RESULTS: A 1995 survey indicated shortcomings in detection and identification of malarial parasites in blood films. Consequently, recommendations for the investigation of malarial parasites in blood were issued. In 1996 and 1997, 16 workshops were conducted. A 1997 follow-up external quality assessment survey indicated that problems persist as 27% of laboratories failed to correctly speciate Plasmodium falciparum. Good Practice Guidelines were issued in 1998. CONCLUSION: Further education and assessment are required. Laboratories lacking expertise must establish referral arrangements with more proficient laboratories.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".