MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411348492 · doi:10.62772/apfcb-news.2022.1.2

Toxicology Testing and the Use of Rapid Test Kits

2022· article· en· W4411348492 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Kinniburgh, Melissa J. Bennett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)MedicineComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing for drugs (prescription or illegal) in biological fluids is useful in the management of potential overdose patients, as well as other clinical situations. Historically, the laboratory used simple chemistry, or spot tests, progressing to thin layer chromatography, laboratory-based immunoassays and specific chemical assays, gas chromatography/liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, and rapid test kits or Point of Care Test (POCT) devices. Modern toxicology laboratories in North America today still use immunoassays and specific chemistry tests, but sophisticated mass spectrometry systems and minimal sample pre-treatment methods are the gold standard in the opinion of toxicologists.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.011 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207