Laboratory reference intervals in the assessment of iron status in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to establish reference intervals for laboratory tests used to assess iron status in young children using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. A secondary objective was to compare the lower limit of the reference interval with the currently recommended cut-off value for haemoglobin and serum ferritin in children 1-3 years of age. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from healthy children recruited during scheduled health supervision visits with their primary care physician. For our primary objective, outliers were removed; age partitions were selected and analysis of variance and pairwise comparisons were made between adjacent partitions; reference intervals and 90% CIs were calculated. For our secondary objective, we determined the proportion of children misclassified using the lower limit reference interval compared with the cut-off value. RESULTS: Samples from 2305 male and 2029 female participants (10 days to 10.6 years) were used to calculate age and sex-specific reference intervals for laboratory tests of iron status. There were statistically significant differences between adjacent age partitions for most analytes. Approximately 10% of children 1-3 years of age were misclassified (underestimated) using the lower limit of the reference intervals rather than the currently recommended cut-off values for haemoglobin and serum ferritin. IMPLICATIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical laboratories may consider adopting published paediatric reference intervals. Reference intervals may misclassify (underestimate) children with iron deficiency as compared with currently recommended cut-off values. Future research on decision limits derived from clinical studies of outcomes is a priority.
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 | 0.126 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".