Point-of-care testing performed by healthcare professionals outside the hospital setting: consensus based recommendations from the IFCC Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (IFCC C-POCT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Committee on Point-of-Care Testing (C-POCT) supports the use of point-of-care testing (POCT) outside of the hospital setting performed by healthcare professionals without formal laboratory education because of its numerous benefits. However, these benefits are associated with risks that must be managed, to ensure the provision of reliable test results and minimize harm to the patient. Healthcare professionals, local regulatory bodies, accredited laboratories as well as manufacturers should actively be engaged in education, oversight and advice to ensure that the healthcare professional selects the appropriate equipment and is able to analyze, troubleshoot and correctly interpret the point-of-care (POC) test 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 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 | 0.191 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".