Results of a cross Canada survey of blood film review practice patterns by technologists and pathologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: No common or widely accepted criteria exist for physician review of blood films or for reported standards of physician rate of blood film review. Individual institutions generally have internal criteria for physician review of blood films. To better understand how and why blood film reviews are performed at different institutions across Canada, with a specific interest in physician blood film review, we undertook a survey to assess the current practise patterns of physician review of blood films across Canada. METHODS: A 15 question survey was developed and sent to 24 academic, large community and corporate laboratories across Canada by e-mail to laboratory directors of those institutions. Centres were chosen to include all provinces in Canada and most of the major academic centres. Twenty of the 24 centres responded. RESULTS: The mean rate of physician review of blood films as a percentage of all CBCs processed per day was 4.1% (range 0.35%-13%) and of all blood films made per day was 28.8% (range 1.9%-66.5%). Data on factors which might affect physician review rates, physician preferences regarding what percentage of physician blood film review rates is reasonable and physician perspectives on the role of physician blood film review are discussed. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals that there is varying practise patterns and opinions with respect to blood film review by physicians in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".