Method Comparison and Investigation of Interference Variables of a Hand‐Held Hemoglobinometer(<scp>HemoCue</scp> Hb 201<sup>+</sup>) in Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Regular blood sampling to monitor RBC mass in anemic cats can exacerbate anemia. Laboratory‐based reporting can delay clinical decisions. A hand‐held hemoglobinometer, HemoCue Hb 201+ (HC‐201), requires only one drop of blood (10 μL) and provides results within 1 min. Objectives This preliminary study aimed to evaluate the utility of HC‐201 in cats and investigate the impact of potential interferents on its performance. Methods One hundred and fifty‐four venous blood samples in EDTA from 93 cats were analyzed. Hemoglobin concentration was measured once using an ADVIA 2120 analyzer and compared to the mean of 2–3 replicate measurements from an HC‐201. Agreement and systematic bias between HC‐201 and ADVIA results, along with precision between HC‐201 replicates, were assessed using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, non‐parametric Bland–Altman, Passing‐Bablok regression, and intraclass correlation coefficient. The performance of HC‐201 in the presence of anemia, leukocytosis, azotemia, lipemia, icterus, hemolysis, and peripheral versus jugular venipunctures was assessed using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Results Passing‐Bablok analysis revealed a significant constant bias (intercept = −2.242, 95% CI: −4.042 to −0.667) but no significant proportional bias (slope = 1.015, 95% CI: 1.000–1.032). HC‐201 demonstrated excellent agreement (ρc = 0.989) and precision (ICC = 0.997) with a median bias of −0.67 g/L (p = 0.001). The total observed error was 3.02%, within the allowable limits defined by international standards. Neither anemia, leukocytosis, azotemia, lipemia, nor venipuncture site influenced HC‐201 measurements. Samples with icterus and hemolysis were insufficient in number for statistical comparison. Conclusions This preliminary study indicates that HC‐201 offers reliable point‐of‐care monitoring for hemoglobin concentration in cats.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".