Cutoff Value for Correcting White Blood Cell Count for Nucleated Red Blood Cells: What is it? Why is it Important?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nucleated red blood cells (RBCs) are normally observed in the peripheral blood of neonates and during pregnancy. Under other conditions, the presence of nucleated RBCs in circulating blood indicates disorder in the blood-producing mechanism. The increased presence of nucleated RBCs, however, falsely elevates the leukocyte count, as measured by most automated hematology analyzers, warranting a manual correction of the leukocyte count. For a long time, cutoff values for correcting white blood cell (WBC) count for the presence of nucleated RBCs have been used regularly, particularly in developing countries. However, because those values are largely subjective, they can vary widely between laboratories worldwide. These varied cutoff values include 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50; it appears that the numbers 5 and 10 are the most common values used in corrections; the reasons require further elucidation. In this article, we discuss the merits of correcting the WBC count for nucleated RBCs at certain cutoff points.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".