Comparison of pneumatic tube system with manual transport for routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pneumatic tube system (PTS) is commonly used in modern clinical laboratories to provide quick specimen delivery. However, its impact on sample integrity and laboratory testing results are still debatable. In addition, each PTS installation and configuration is unique to its institution. We sought to validate our Swisslog PTS by comparing routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas test results and sample integrity indices between duplicate samples transported either manually or by PTS. METHODS: Duplicate samples were delivered to the core laboratory manually by human courier or via the Swisslog PTS. Head-to-head comparisons of 48 routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas laboratory tests, and three sample integrity indices were conducted on 41 healthy volunteers and 61 adult patients. RESULTS: The PTS showed no impact on sample hemolysis, lipemia, or icterus indices (all p<0.05). Although alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin and hemoglobin reached statistical significance (p=0.009, 0.027 and 0.012, respectively), all had very low average bias which ranged from 0.01% to 2%. Potassium, total hemoglobin and percent deoxyhemoglobin were statistically significant for the neonatal capillary tube study (p=0.011, 0.033 and 0.041, respectively) but no biases greater than ±4% were identified for these parameters. All observed differences of these 48 laboratory tests were not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The modern PTS investigated in this study is acceptable for reliable sample delivery for routine chemistry, hematology, coagulation and blood gas (in syringe and capillary tube) laboratory tests.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".