MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414741184 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaf086.105

A-107 Evaluating the Use of Albumin-Corrected Calcium Measurements in an Acute Care Hospital Network

2025· article· en· W4414741184 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Ren, Purvi P. Patel, Linda Stevenson, Lisa Brown, Veronica Roberts, Nicholas Pellegrino, Saranya Arnoldo

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic HospitalWilliam Osler Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoalbuminemiaCalciumConcordanceAlbuminCalcium metabolismSerum albumin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Using albumin-corrected calcium remains a conventional practice for determining calcium homeostasis, particularly in patients with hypoalbuminemia. However, studies have demonstrated that relying on albumin-corrected calcium in patients with hypoalbuminemia can overestimate serum calcium levels. We evaluated the correlation between total calcium measurements (with or without albumin correction) and ionized calcium levels in patients with normal and low albumin levels. Our findings were valuable for providing physician education on discontinuing the report of albumin-corrected calcium in our health system. This change aims to improve patient care and optimize laboratory resources. Methods We analyzed six months of patient data for total calcium, with and without albumin correction, obtained across three hospitals (N=56465). The Payne formula [Corrected calcium (mmol/L) = total calcium (mmol/L) + 0.02 [40 - albumin (g/L)] was used to derive the albumin-corrected calcium. We assessed paired ionized calcium specimens, collected within 24 hours apart (N=3123). The linear relationship and clinical correlation were assessed between total calcium, with or without albumin correction, with ionized calcium levels. Results Linear regression showed comparably moderate correlation between uncorrected (R² = 0.75, slope= 1.58) and corrected total calcium (R² = 0.74, slope= 1.55) with ionized calcium levels. In patients with hypoalbuminemia (N=2609), the clinical concordance with ionized calcium was stronger with uncorrected calcium compared to albumin-corrected calcium (72% vs 53%). Moreover, the clinical concordance with low ionized calcium was significantly higher using uncorrected calcium, compared to corrected calcium (88% vs 20%). When the ionized calcium is normal, the concordance was similar between uncorrected and corrected calcium (62% vs 60%). Conclusion Our findings support the literature that relying on the interpretation of albumin-corrected calcium can overestimate calcium status. There is a high risk of missing true hypocalcemia, where the corrected calcium level is in the normal range while the ionized calcium level is low. The uncorrected calcium measurement was more reliable for determining calcium status and agrees better with ionized calcium, in the presence of hypoalbuminemia.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207