Challenges with point of care glucose measurements for management of hypoglycemia in neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines from the Canadian Paediatric Society recommend investigating hypoglycemia at a patient blood glucose concentration of 2.6 mmol/L for patients less than 72 hours of age and 3.3 mmol/L for patients 72 hours of age or older (1). Patients with blood glucose <2.8 mmol/L after 72 hours of age require additional investigation with samples sent to the laboratory for glucose (to confirm), beta-hydroxybutyrate, bicarbonate, lactate, free fatty acids, insulin, growth hormone, cortisol, carnitine, and acylcarnitines (1). Neonatal blood glucose concentrations are frequently monitored using point of care testing (POCT) glucose metres. In Canada, there are currently two glucose metres approved by Health Canada for use in hospitals, the Accu-Chek Inform II (Roche Diagnostics) and the StatStrip (Nova Biomedical). POCT glucose metres are accurate for monitoring glycemic control in patients with diabetes (2). However, the accuracy and precision limitations of these metres struggle to match clinical need in the context of neonatal hypoglycemia. POCT glucose results have been shown to differ by as much as 10–20% from central laboratory methods for measurements in the hypoglycemic range; importantly, this difference, or bias, is not consistent between vendors (3,4). The extent of this bias can also shift over time due to variable performance of different lot numbers of test strips, highlighting the need for ongoing evaluation of metre performance.
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 | 0.047 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".