Evaluation of pre-analytical factors impacting urine test strip and chemistry results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Careful consideration of the pre-analytical process for urine examination is essential to avoid errors and support accurate results and decision-making. Our objective was to assess the impact of various pre-analytical factors on urine test strip and quantitative chemistry results, including stability, tube type, fill volume, and centrifugation. METHODS: Residual random urine specimens were identified. Stability of 10 urine test strips and 13 quantitative chemistry parameters were assessed at eight time points (2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h) at room temperature (RT) and 2-8 °C (n=10-20 samples). The effect of additional pre-analytical variables was assessed, including using preservative tubes for urine chemistry as well as preservative tube underfilling and centrifugation on urine test strip results (n=10 samples). RESULTS: Seven of the ten urine tests strips evaluated met the minimal agreement criteria for stability (Cohen's kappa >0.70) across all conditions. A Cohen's kappa value of <0.70 was observed for pH (48 h), glucose (72 h), and protein (96 h) at RT. All 13 urine chemistry analytes remained stable at defined time points and conditions. Underfilling preservative tubes for urine test strips and centrifugation demonstrated no significant effect. The impact of using preservative tubes for urine chemistry was negligible with the exception of sodium and osmolality. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the pre-analytical factors that impact urine specimen evaluation and may be useful in informing clinical laboratory practices. Acceptable stability window for urine test strips should be considered in the context of the proportion of pathological samples evaluated.
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 | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".