MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385791563 · doi:10.1136/ebm-2023-pod.40

40 Increasing the between testing interval to 365 days as guided by biological variation

2023· article· en· W4385791563 on OpenAlexaffabout
George S. Cembrowski, Jialin Qiu, Christopher R. McCudden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBilirubinMathematicsSodiumCreatinineSodium bicarbonateStatisticsAnimal scienceInternal medicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives There is bountiful evidence of ambulatory patient over-testing, both in terms of the tests ordered and their frequency. To be thorough and efficient, many physicians pay short shrift to sustainable test ordering. We have developed a calculus that transforms sequential intra-patient test results into total variation comprising its preanalytical, analytical and biological components. We have used this approach to compare the analytical and clinical performance of multiple analytical systems. Here, we determine the total test variation in patients with test separation intervals of 90, 180, 270 and 365 days. We demonstrate that annual testing with phlebotomies scheduled at the same time of day minimizes the variation of the sequential test results and permits optimal discrimination of a statistically significant change in the test results. Method We studied 5 years (2014-2019) of Ottawa Hospital adult outpatient general chemistry test pairs of albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, calcium, chloride, bicarbonate, creatinine, potassium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, total bilirubin and urea. Intrapatient data pairs (separated by 88-92, 178-182, 268-272 and 363-367 days), were divided into 2 groups: those sampled on weekdays at the same time of day (+ 2 hr) and those with 3 to 8 hr sampling differences . The between pair variations were derived calculated with Dahlberg’s formula. Results The median numbers of patient pairs/analyte for the matched sampling times were 1034 (90 days), 696 (180 days), 84 (270 days) and 364 (365 days). For the unmatched sampling times, the median numbers of patient pairs were much smaller, ranging between 38 to 290 and their average variations exceeded the matched pair variations by as much as 30% (phosphate and creatinine). The matched pair 90, 180, 270 and 365 day variations were highly correlated (r ranged from 0.965 to 0.977). Compared to the other periods, the 180 day variations were smaller (-7.5%) and the 270 day variations were larger (+11.9%). Overall, the 365 day magnitudes of variations were closest to the magnitudes of variation of the other periods. Conclusions At least £2.2 billion are spent annually on UK pathology services, a significant portion wasted on suboptimal testing including: 1) tests are ordered too closely, providing little new information 2) tests that are ordered 9 months later and have been influenced by seasonal factors or 3) sequential tests that are ordered at different times of the day and are influenced by diurnal variation. Biological variation can be a guide to reducing test wastage and setting a standard for testing intervals that are minimally one year with the patient being sampled at the same time of day. Simple algorithms incorporating minimal sequential data would be able to discern real laboratory trends far more readily than ‘thorough and efficient’ but over-testing clinicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.883
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→