Comparison of a Point-of-care Cholesterol Meter With a Reference Laboratory Analyzer in Companion Psittaciformes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypercholesterolemia is common in captive Psittaciformes. A point-of-care cholesterol analyzer would be useful to monitor hypercholesterolemia in psittacine birds. We compare a point-of-care cholesterol analyzer (PTS-Diagnostics CardioChek) with a reference laboratory analyzer (Roche Cobas c501) and provide initial assessment of precision and accuracy. A prospective method comparison study was designed to compare the CardioChek and Cobas c501 by assessment of clinical and analytical agreement using Passing-Bablock regression analysis and difference plots. Initial accuracy was assessed by running cholesterol standards, and initial precision was assessed by calculating between-run coefficient of variation on samples from selected birds. A total of 42 psittacine birds were sampled. No significant constant bias was found between the Cobas and CardioChek. However, a significant negative proportional bias was evident, suggesting that the point-of-care analyzer tended to underestimate cholesterol values. Lipemia and hemolysis had strong effects on increasing bias. Hematocrit, glucose level, and genus had no significant impact on bias, controlling for lipemia and hemolysis. Accuracy of the CardioCheck was suboptimal to that of the Cobas, but precision was good. When defining hypercholesterolemia as >8 mmol/L (309 mg/dL), the CardioChek had a sensitivity of 57% and specificity of 96%. There was neither analytical nor clinical agreement between the CardioChek and Cobas c501. Values obtained from the CardioChek cannot be used to determine or monitor hypercholesterolemia in parrots in the absence of analyzer-specific reference intervals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".