Candidate recommendations for protein electrophoresis reporting from the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists Monoclonal Gammopathy Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein electrophoresis is commonly used as an aid in the diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathies and is performed in many laboratories in Canada and throughout the world. However, unlike many other diagnostic tests, there is limited guidance for standardization and neither guidance nor specific recommendations for clinical reporting of serum (SPE) or urine (UPE) protein electrophoresis and immunotyping available in the literature. Therefore, a Canadian effort was undertaken to recommend standards that cover all aspects of clinical reporting with an ultimate goal towards reporting standardization. The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) Monoclonal Gammopathy Interest Group (MGIG), which is composed of CSCC members with an interest in protein electrophoresis, has formed a Monoclonal Gammopathy Working Group (MGWG) to take initial steps towards standardization of SPE, UPE and immunotyping. Candidate standardization recommendations were developed, discussed and voted upon by the MGWG. Candidate recommendations that achieved 90% agreement are presented as consensus recommendations. Recommendations that did not achieve 90% consensus remain candidate recommendations and are presented with accompanying MGWG discussion. Eleven consensus recommendations along with candidate recommendations for nomenclature, protein fraction reporting, test utilization, interference handling and interpretive reporting options are presented.
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 | 0.135 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
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".