MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000379474 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105144

Dataset of test volume and tests repeated for complete blood count and electrolyte panels from hospitals in a Canadian province in 2018

2020· article· en· W3000379474 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Irene Ma, Maggie Guo, Cheryl K. Lau, Vijay Kandalam, Christopher Naugler

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMean corpuscular hemoglobin concentrationMean corpuscular volumeMedicineHematocritTest (biology)Red blood cell distribution widthComplete blood countHemoglobinInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All laboratory tests performed within the province of Alberta in Canada are captured by three Laboratory Information Systems (LIS; Millennium, Sunquest and Meditech), which comprise the provincial Consolidated Laboratory Data Repository (CLDR). The following secondary laboratory data for electrolyte panel (EP) and complete blood count (CBC) test panels performed in emergency room (ER) and inpatient settings were collected from January 1 - December 31, 2018: total test panel volume, total number of test panels repeated, number of test panels repeated within the 24 hour period, test result, date of testing, time of test, and patient Provincial Health Number (PHN). Patient PHN were used as a linking variable to match subsequent tests performed on the same patient. The first time a test was recorded per patient was defined as the "index test". If the same test panel was performed within a 24-h period following the index test for the patient, data for the repeated test panel was also collected. The index test was defined as "normal" or "abnormal" according to established laboratory normal values and laboratory test reference ranges. For CBCs, we considered the panel to be abnormal if any of the hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (Hgb), mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), platelet (PLT), red blood cell (RBC), red cell distribution width (RDW) or white blood cell (WBC) values were outside the normal laboratory reference range. For electrolyte panels, we considered the panel to be abnormal if any of the chloride (Cl), potassium (K), and sodium (Na) were outside of the normal laboratory reference range. All EP results were from clinical chemistry analyzers only. The reuse potential of this dataset can allow other jurisdictions in Canada to compare their redundant repeat testing in their hospital settings with this dataset as a benchmark. This article was submitted via another Elsevier journal as a co-submission ("Inappropriate repeat testing of complete blood count (CBC) and electrolytes in inpatients from Alberta, Canada" [1]), and readers should refer to the co-submission article for interpretation of the results.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207