MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Albumin-Adjusted Calcium Measurements in Clinical Practice

2025· article· en· W4406666067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noémie Desgagnés, James A. King, Gregory Kline, Isolde Seiden‐Long, Alexander A. C. Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciumCalcium metabolismAlbuminMedicineInternal medicineClinical PracticePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Using albumin-adjusted calcium is commonly recommended for for measuring calcium, but with little empirical evidence to support the practice. Objective: To assess the correlation between total calcium measurements (with or without adjustment) vs the ionized calcium level as a reference standard. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study in the province of Alberta, Canada, including adults tested for serum total calcium and ionized calcium simultaneously between January 1, 2013, and October 31, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from March 2023 to October 2024. Main Measures and Outcomes: The correlation between unadjusted and adjusted total calcium measurements (using 10 formulas) and the ionized calcium level was evaluated, along with the potential association with the classification of calcium status. Results: Among 22 658 patients included, 11 889 (52.5%) were female and 10 769 (47.5%) were male; the median (IQR) age was 60 (47-72) years. The unadjusted total calcium (R2 = 71.7%; 95% CI, 71.1%-72.2%) had a stronger correlation with ionized calcium than the commonly used simplified Payne formula (ie, total calcium [mmol/L] + 0.02 [40 - albumin (g/L)]) (R2 = 68.9%; 95% CI, 68.0%-69.6%) and correlated similarly to other formulas (Payne: lowest R2 = 60.3%; 95% CI, 59.3%-61.3%; and James: highest R2 = 76.7%; 95% CI, 76.1%-77.3%). When classifying patients into categories of hypocalcemia, normocalcemia, or hypercalcemia, unadjusted total calcium had the best overall agreement (74.5%) with ionized calcium compared with albumin-adjusted calcium using the original Payne and simplified Payne formulas (agreement 63.0% and 58.7%, respectively). Misclassification using the adjustment formulas was worse in the presence of hypoalbuminemia (albumin level <30 g/L). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study drawn from a contemporaneous population, there appeared to be heavy reliance on adjustment formulas for calcium in clinical practice with little gain but considerable risk of misclassification of true calcium status, especially in the presence of hypoalbuminemia. These results suggest that unadjusted total calcium was the best and most practical alternative to ionized calcium.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207