PAIRED BIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PIGMENTED PLASMA SAMPLES FROM ZOO-KEPT AMERICAN FLAMINGOS (PHOENICOPTERUS RUBER) USING A POINT-OF-CARE AND A STANDARD WET CHEMISTRY ANALYZER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) are commonly kept in zoological collections, making health monitoring essential. Use of point-of-care (POC) blood analyzers that require small volumes of whole blood samples produces prompt results allowing for rapid clinical decision-making. To evaluate and compare blood biochemistry analysis results analyzed by a POC biochemistry analyzer and a laboratory wet biochemistry analyzer, blood was collected from 17 apparently healthy zoo-kept American flamingos. Analyzer agreement was investigated using the Passing-Bablock regression analysis and Spearman correlation coefficients. Plasma samples from all birds were bright yellow in color. The results from the POC analyzer used in this study were found to be outside acceptance and clinical allowable error limits when compared with the laboratory analyzer for phosphorus (Phos), total protein (TP), albumin (Alb), glucose (Glu), creatine kinase (CK), and potassium (K). For aspartate aminotransferase (AST), results were within clinical allowable error but outside the acceptance limits, and for calcium (Ca) and sodium (Na), results were within both limits. The POC analyzer failed to measure the uric acid (UA) concentrations of all the samples, and reported all bile acids (BA) concentrations as below its minimal measurable limit. The use of analyzer-specific reference intervals is recommended for most analytes tested. The POC analyzer used in this study cannot be recommended for measuring UA concentrations in brightly colored samples from American flamingos.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".