MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387572130 · doi:10.1111/trf.280_17554

P‐IS‐3 | Establishing Reference Intervals for Clinical Laboratory Tests: The Role of Blood Centers

2023· article· en· W4387572130 on OpenAlexaff
M. Anderson, P. Latschar, Daniel F. Heitjan, M. Patterson, Wolfgang Linz, Laurence S. Baskin, Mark Stevenson, J. D. Armitage, Tina S. Ipe

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceMedicineHumanitiesPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical laboratory tests require appropriate reference intervals (RI) for accurate interpretation. The importance of RI cannot be understated as many diagnostic and medical treatment decisions are based on laboratory results. Blood centers are ideal locations for reference subject recruitment since blood donors are diverse and vary in age, race, ethnicity, reasonable health status, etc. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that is elevated in various diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and COVID-19. In severe COVID-19 infections, IL-6 levels are 2.9 times higher compared to mild cases, making it a potential therapeutic target and prognostic indicator for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. An independent blood center leveraged access to a large and diverse donor population to evaluate the RI of IL-6 in the community using a new point-of-care (POC) testing device. Whole blood (WB) and serum samples were taken from healthy adults aged >22 years who donated blood at a regional blood center from September to December 2022. IL-6 testing was run on samples using a POC microfluidic immunoanalyzer. Participants were enrolled based on IRB-approved, study-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. The POC device RI was compared to a peer-reviewed publication on normal values for IL-6 in healthy individuals (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33155686/). A total of 185 donors were screened, of whom 134 were eligible for the study. Most participants were male (58.2%) and Caucasian (76.1%). IL-6 ranges in WB were significantly higher than serum levels, 1–285 pg/mL versus 0–185 pg/mL, (Wilcoxon p < .001, Table 1). The difference between males and females was significant for WB IL-6 (Mann–Whitney p = .001), but not for serum IL-6 (p = .123). The measured IL-6 values positively correlated with age (correlation coefficient WB 0.227 [p = .008]; serum 0.197 [p = .022]). The POC immunoanalyzer has a specificity of 93% (WB) and 94% (serum) when testing for any evidence of disease or inflammation, using a cutoff value based on the first standard deviation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207