Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Top 10 Choosing Wisely Canada’s Recommendations for Conserving Laboratory Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the production, distribution, and demand of essential laboratory supplies worldwide. In 2021, severe shortages in required laboratory supplies such as blood collection tubes, butterfly needles, and blood gas syringes became a critical issue across Canada. Many hospitals or institutions had to instruct physicians and patients to limit laboratory testing where possible and, in some cases, required emergency shipments of tubes from alternative vendors or nearby hospitals. Laboratory testing is ubiquitous in managing patients. It is used for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring purposes. With limited blood collection tubes, consideration for restricting non-urgent testing is needed to conserve supply and protect acute care departments that manage critically ill patients. In addition, laboratories across Canada have experienced significant staffing shortages, resulting in an even greater need for appropriate laboratory utilization. Consequently, the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) and the Canadian Association of Medical Biochemists (CAMB) curated utilization recommendations for both hospital and primary care settings in collaboration with Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC). These recommendations were specifically selected from those previously published by Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC), with impact statements and rationales added to conserve at-risk laboratory resources. Supply chain disruptions of clinical laboratory resources are expected to continue throughout 2022, indicating that now, more than ever, a focus on appropriate laboratory utilization is essential.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".