MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783428389 · doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqx115.018

19 Reduced Accuracy of GEM 4000 for Measurement of Electrolytes, Glucose, and Hemoglobin in Relation to Calibration Schedule

2018· article· en· W2783428389 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mireille M. Kattar, Qian Xu, Adam R. Cembrowski, Junyi Mei, Hossein Sadrzadeh, George Cembrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemoglobinElectrolytePoint of careCalibrationMedicineMorningNuclear medicineChemistryMathematicsInternal medicineStatisticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GEM 4000 (Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, MA) is a point-of-care analyzer, primarily used in a critical care setting to measure blood gases, glucose, electrolytes, and hemoglobin. Previous studies have shown that the instrument demonstrates increased imprecision compared to similar analyzers for iCa, electrolytes, and blood gases when external quality control material is run. In this study, accuracy was assessed by comparing patient GEM test results to corresponding central laboratory results for patients whose point-of-care and central laboratory specimens were tested within 30 minutes of each other. A laboratory database was mined for measurements of glucose, electrolytes, and hemoglobin using two GEM 4000 instruments on intensive care unit patients at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, over a 2-year period (2012–2013). Results were compared to concurrent testing (≤30 minutes interval) performed using comparable central laboratory methods, the Roche Cobas 8000 for chemistry and Sysmex XN-3000 for hemoglobin. The mean absolute differences were calculated for each sequence of 1000 pairs of central laboratory and GEM results, and graphed against time of day. The GEM displayed optimal accuracy in the early morning, coincident with the daily (2:00 am) analysis of calibrator solution (PSC C), and worsened, reaching peak inaccuracy and plateauing at 6–8 hours post-calibration. The analytes most affected were glucose, Na, K, and hemoglobin. The analytical variation of the GEM approached the corresponding biological variation (low sigma) for glucose, hemoglobin, and electrolytes except K. This data confirm the reduced accuracy of the GEM 4000 in nonmorning hours, which probably negatively impacts patient care, and calls for technological enhancements in the next-generation GEM instruments. Laboratories that use the GEM system should begin dialogues with its primary clinical users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207