A zlog-based algorithm and tool for plausibility checks of reference intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Laboratory information systems typically contain hundreds or even thousands of reference limits stratified by sex and age. Since under these conditions a manual plausibility check is hardly feasible, we have developed a simple algorithm that facilitates this check. An open-source R tool is available as a Shiny application at github.com/SandraKla/Zlog_AdRI. METHODS: Based on the zlog standardization, we can possibly detect critical jumps at the transitions between age groups, regardless of the analytical method or the measuring unit. Its advantage compared to the standard z-value is that means and standard deviations are calculated from the reference limits rather than from the underlying data itself. The purpose of the tool is illustrated by the example of reference intervals of children and adolescents from the Canadian Laboratory Initiative on Pediatric Reference Intervals (CALIPER). RESULTS: The Shiny application identifies the zlog values, lists them in a colored table format and plots them additionally with the specified reference intervals. The algorithm detected several strong and rapid changes in reference intervals from the neonatal period to puberty. Remarkable jumps with absolute zlog values of more than five were seen for 29 out of 192 reference limits (15.1%). This might be attenuated by introducing shorter time periods or mathematical functions of reference limits over age. CONCLUSIONS: Age-partitioned reference intervals will remain the standard in laboratory routine for the foreseeable future, and as such, algorithmic approaches like our zlog approach in the presented Shiny application will remain valuable tools for testing their plausibility on a wide scale.
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 | 0.012 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.012 |
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".