MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898926688 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000929

An electronic technetium-99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid glomerular filtration rate spreadsheet with novel embedded quality assurance features

2018· article· en· W2898926688 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Klein, Simin Razavi, Rayhan Memon, Lionel S. Zuckier

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiethylenetriaminepentaacetic acidQuality assuranceTechnetiumRenal functionChemistryTechnetium-99mNuclear medicineMedicineChelationBiochemistryScintigraphyPathologyExternal quality assessmentInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Critical clinical decisions are made on the basis of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured using technetium-99m-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) administration, followed by multiple time-point plasma sampling. As GFR studies rely on few data points and produce a single result, they are prone to technical errors that may remain inconspicuous. OBJECTIVE: We describe a data analysis worksheet that provides real-time quality control (QC) indicators and evaluate our initial clinical experience. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-six consecutive GFR studies carried out at our clinics were included. Our protocol used plasma samples at 2, 3, and 4 h after injection of technetium-99m-DTPA. Duplicate plasma samples, background samples, and aliquots of an activity dilution standard were counted. Times were logged for injection and dilution standard preparation, blood sampling, and counting. Data were entered into a custom GFR analysis spreadsheet that flagged QC in real time at warning and error levels, including QC of the expected ratio between dilution standard counts-activity ratio (CARs) measurements, which was newly introduced to our clinic. The prevalence of QC events was analyzed in three phases: baseline, training, and evaluation (n=31, 69, and 146, respectively). RESULTS: From the baseline and training phases (n=100), CAR reference values were determined for each of two sites. In the absence of the CAR QC indicator, errors were present in 5/31 (16%) examinations, but with QC indication decreased to 7/146 (5%) (P<0.05), suggesting that the real-time QC information guided the technologists to ensure proper standard preparation and sample handling, as intended. Improvements in other QC measures were also noted, resulting in an overall error rate reduction from 23 to 8%. CONCLUSION: Real-time analysis of redundant information as a component of the GFR worksheet ensures quality results, but training of technologists and interpreting physicians is essential for optimal utilization of these QC indicators.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207