Effect of synthetic colloid administration on hemodynamic and laboratory variables in healthy dogs and dogs with systemic inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of administering equal volumes of isotonic crystalloids and synthetic colloids on hemodynamic and laboratory variables in healthy dogs and dogs with systemic inflammation. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded study. SETTING: Comparative clinical research facility. ANIMALS: Sixteen adult purpose-bred Beagles. INTERVENTIONS: Dogs were first randomized to receive either lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 5 μg/kg, IV) or an equal volume of placebo (0.9% NaCl, IV). Dogs were then randomized into 1 of 2 groups receiving fluid resuscitation with either 40 mL/kg IV isotonic crystalloid (0.9% NaCl) or synthetic colloid (tetrastarch). After a 14-day washout, the study was repeated such that dogs received the opposite treatment (LPS or placebo) and the same resuscitation fluid regimen. Vital signs (heart rate (HR), oscillometric blood pressure) were measured and blood samples were collected for PCV, total plasma protein (TPP), serum lactate concentration, and colloid osmotic pressure (COP) measurements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Healthy (placebo) dogs had similar decreases in PCV and TPP after administration of either fluid. Tetrastarch administration was associated with a larger increase in HR, systolic blood pressure, and mean blood pressure. Dogs with systemic inflammation had similar increases in systolic blood pressure and decreases in PCV, TPP, and lactate after administration of either fluid. Tetrastarch administration caused greater immediate increase in HR and mean blood pressure compared to 0.9% NaCl. In all dogs, 0.9% NaCl administration decreased COP and tetrastarch administration increased COP. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation with equal volumes of 0.9% NaCl and tetrastarch caused similar changes in hemodynamic and laboratory variables in dogs with LPS-induced systemic inflammation; however, larger increases in HR and blood pressure were seen within the first 2 hours following tetrastarch administration compared to 0.9% NaCl. Tetrastarch administration increased COP in all dogs, despite a decrease in TPP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".