MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917346689 · doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2019-205725

The adaptation of AABACUS for quality improvement in laboratory workflow analysis ("L-AABACUS")

2019· article· en· W2917346689 on OpenAlexaff
Shehnaz Khan, Carol C. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowWorkloadComputer scienceTurnaround timeStaffingAdaptation (eye)Quality managementKey (lock)MedicineOperations managementEngineeringDatabaseOperating systemManagement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to effectively monitor key indicators is important for continuous quality improvement in laboratory immunohistochemistry. This article deals specifically with laboratory turnaround time (TAT) as a key delivery indicator and the impact of laboratory workflow on laboratory TATs. While our laboratory has traditionally relied on the manual calculation of slide-TAT (S-TAT) to monitor delivery, we have determined that automated calculation of case-TAT (C-TAT) would be superior as a delivery indicator. AABACUS (Automatable Activity-Based Approach to Complexity Unit Scoring) is an activity-based workload model designed to function primarily as a decision support tool to monitor pathologist staffing levels. We devised a high-level proof-of-principle approach to determine whether it is possible to apply AABACUS as a decision support tool for quality improvement through analysis of alternative laboratory workflows that have potential to impact C-TAT. Our use of AABACUS in this proof-of-principle quality improvement endeavour was two-fold: (1) we leveraged the ability of AABACUS to link data at the slide level to data at the case level, which enabled the automated calculation of C-TAT; and (2) we adapted AABACUS to evaluate the impact of laboratory workflow activities (specifically workflow bifurcation activities) on the calculated C-TATs. We have coined the term 'L-AABACUS' to describe the adaptation of AABACUS to the analysis of laboratory workflow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207