Accuracy and Reproducibility of BiliCare™ Transcutaneous Bilirubin Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of a new transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) device - BiliCareTM (Gerium Medical, Yavne, Israel). METHODS: The neonatal TcB measurements were compared between BiliCareTM and the existing BiliChekTM systems (n = 40). TcB measured by BiliCareTM were also compared with total serum bilirubin (TSB) using a Roche Cobas702 chemistry analyzer (n = 31) and whole blood bilirubin using a Radiometer ABL 835 (n = 11). Reproducibility was assessed by repeating TcB measurements with 2 BiliCareTM devices on a normal neonate, two with borderline jaundice, and one with overt jaundice 10 to 20 times respectively within 30 minutes. RESULTS: Compared with BiliChekTM, BiliCareTM demonstrated an average bias of -35.9 µmol/L (-20.6%) (Bili-CareTM = 0.6724 BiliChekTM +20.984, r = 0.8414). BiliCareTM had a better agreement with Cobas702 (BiliCareTM = 0.8356 Cobas702 +31.884, r = 0.8576, average bias 8.0 µmol/L (5.3%)). Similarly, BiliCareTM had a -12.7 µmol/L (-7.2%) average bias compared with ABL835 (BiliCareTM = 0.6166 ABL835 +54.464, r = 0.8287). At TcB 94.5, 155.2, 182.7, and 269.3 µmol/l levels, BiliCareTM had demonstrated imprecision as 8.9%, 9.8%, 5.4%, and 6.9% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The new BiliCareTM correlates with total serum bilirubin as measured on laboratory chemistry analyzer Cobas702 and is acceptable for neonatal transcutaneous bilirubin testing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".