Dataset Information

Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A major objective of the IFCC Task Force on Implementation of HbA1c Standardization is to develop a model to define quality targets for glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c).

Methods

Two generic models, biological variation and sigma-metrics, are investigated. We selected variables in the models for Hb A1c and used data of external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs to evaluate the suitability of the models to set and evaluate quality targets within and between laboratories.

Results

In the biological variation model, 48% of individual laboratories and none of the 26 instrument groups met the minimum performance criterion. In the sigma-metrics model, with a total allowable error (TAE) set at 5 mmol/mol (0.46% NGSP), 77% of the individual laboratories and 12 of 26 instrument groups met the 2σ criterion.

Conclusions

The biological variation and sigma-metrics models were demonstrated to be suitable for setting and evaluating quality targets within and between laboratories. The sigma-metrics model is more flexible, as both the TAE and the risk of failure can be adjusted to the situation-for example, requirements related to diagnosis/monitoring or international authorities. With the aim of reaching (inter)national consensus on advice regarding quality targets for Hb A1c, the Task Force suggests the sigma-metrics model as the model of choice, with default values of 5 mmol/mol (0.46%) for TAE and risk levels of 2σ and 4σ for routine laboratories and laboratories performing clinical trials, respectively. These goals should serve as a starting point for discussion with international stakeholders in the field of diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Weykamp C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4946649 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics.

Weykamp Cas C John Garry G Gillery Philippe P English Emma E Ji Linong L Lenters-Westra Erna E Little Randie R RR Roglic Gojka G Sacks David B DB Takei Izumi I

Clinical chemistry 20150303 5

<h4>Background</h4>A major objective of the IFCC Task Force on Implementation of HbA1c Standardization is to develop a model to define quality targets for glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c).<h4>Methods</h4>Two generic models, biological variation and sigma-metrics, are investigated. We selected variables in the models for Hb A1c and used data of external quality assurance/proficiency testing programs to evaluate the suitability of the models to set and evaluate quality targets within and between labor ...[more]

PMID: 25737535

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDialog agents (chatbots) have a long history of application in health care, where they have been used for tasks such as supporting patient self-management and providing counseling. Their use is expected to grow with increasing demands on health systems and improving artificial intelligence (AI) capability. Approaches to the evaluation of health care chatbots, however, appear to be diverse and haphazard, resulting in a potential barrier to the advancement of the field.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the technical (nonclinical) metrics used by previous studies to evaluate health care chatbots.MethodsStudies were identified by searching 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) in addition to conducting backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. The studies were independently selected by two reviewers who then extracted data from the included studies. Extracted data were synthesized narratively by grouping the identified metrics into categories based on the aspect of chatbots that the metrics evaluated.ResultsOf the 1498 citations retrieved, 65 studies were included in this review. Chatbots were evaluated using 27 technical metrics, which were related to chatbots as a whole (eg, usability, classifier performance, speed), response generation (eg, comprehensibility, realism, repetitiveness), response understanding (eg, chatbot understanding as assessed by users, word error rate, concept error rate), and esthetics (eg, appearance of the virtual agent, background color, and content).ConclusionsThe technical metrics of health chatbot studies were diverse, with survey designs and global usability metrics dominating. The lack of standardization and paucity of objective measures make it difficult to compare the performance of health chatbots and could inhibit advancement of the field. We suggest that researchers more frequently include metrics computed from conversation logs. In addition, we recommend the development of a framework of technical metrics with recommendations for specific circumstances for their inclusion in chatbot studies.

Project description:BackgroundThere exist many methods for describing the complex relation between changes of gene expression in molecular pathways or gene ontologies under different experimental conditions. Among them, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis seems to be one of the most commonly used (over 10,000 citations). An important parameter, which could affect the final result, is the choice of a metric for the ranking of genes. Applying a default ranking metric may lead to poor results.Methods and resultsIn this work 28 benchmark data sets were used to evaluate the sensitivity and false positive rate of gene set analysis for 16 different ranking metrics including new proposals. Furthermore, the robustness of the chosen methods to sample size was tested. Using k-means clustering algorithm a group of four metrics with the highest performance in terms of overall sensitivity, overall false positive rate and computational load was established i.e. absolute value of Moderated Welch Test statistic, Minimum Significant Difference, absolute value of Signal-To-Noise ratio and Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler test statistic. In case of false positive rate estimation, all selected ranking metrics were robust with respect to sample size. In case of sensitivity, the absolute value of Moderated Welch Test statistic and absolute value of Signal-To-Noise ratio gave stable results, while Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler and Minimum Significant Difference showed better results for larger sample size. Finally, the Gene Set Enrichment Analysis method with all tested ranking metrics was parallelised and implemented in MATLAB, and is available at https://github.com/ZAEDPolSl/MrGSEA .ConclusionsChoosing a ranking metric in Gene Set Enrichment Analysis has critical impact on results of pathway enrichment analysis. The absolute value of Moderated Welch Test has the best overall sensitivity and Minimum Significant Difference has the best overall specificity of gene set analysis. When the number of non-normally distributed genes is high, using Baumgartner-Weiss-Schindler test statistic gives better outcomes. Also, it finds more enriched pathways than other tested metrics, which may induce new biological discoveries.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation science has grown rapidly as a discipline over the past two decades. An examination of how publication patterns and other scholarly activities of implementation scientists are weighted in the tenure and promotion process is needed given the unique and applied focus of the field.MethodsWe surveyed implementation scientists (mostly from the USA) to understand their perspectives on the following matters: (1) factors weighted in tenure and promotion for implementation scientists, (2) how important these factors are for success as an implementation scientist, (3) how impact is defined for implementation scientists, (4) top journals in implementation science, and (5) how these journals are perceived with regard to their prestige. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data, and we used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare the participants' ratings of various factors. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis.ResultsOne hundred thirty-two implementation scientists completed the survey (response rate = 28.9%). Four factors were rated as more important for tenure and promotion decisions: number of publications, quality of publication outlets, success in obtaining external funding, and record of excellence in teaching. Six factors were rated as more important for overall success as an implementation scientist: presentations at professional meetings, involvement in professional service, impact of the implementation scientist's scholarship on the local community and/or state, impact of the implementation scientist's scholarship on the research community, the number and quality of the implementation scientist's community partnerships, and the implementation scientist's ability to disseminate their work to non-research audiences. Participants most frequently defined and described impact as changing practice and/or policy. This expert cohort identified Implementation Science as the top journal in the field.ConclusionsOverall, there was a significant mismatch between the factors experts identified as being important to academic success (e.g., tenure and promotion) and the factors needed to be a successful implementation scientist. Findings have important implications for capacity building, although they are largely reflective of the promotion and tenure process in the USA.

Dataset Information

Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Investigation of 2 models to set and evaluate quality targets for hb a1c: biological variation and sigma-metrics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets