Evaluation of a transcutaneous blood gas monitoring system in critically ill dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of a transcutaneous blood gas monitoring system in critically ill dogs, determine if transcutaneous and arterial blood gas values have good agreement, and verify if clinical or laboratory variables are correlated with differences between transcutaneous and arterial blood gas measurements. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University teaching hospital ICU. ANIMALS: Twenty-three client-owned dogs. INTERVENTIONS: In critically ill dogs undergoing arterial blood gas monitoring, a transcutaneous blood gas monitor was used to measure transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PtcCO2 ) and transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen (PtcO2 ) values 30 minutes after sensor placement, which were compared to PaCO2 and PaO2 values measured simultaneously. Clinical and laboratory variables were concurrently recorded to determine if they were correlated with the difference between transcutaneous and arterial blood gas measurements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of 4.6 ± 26.3 mm Hg (limits of agreement [LOA]: -46.9/+56.1 mm Hg) between PtcO2 and PaO2 and a mean bias of 9.3 ± 8.5 mm Hg (LOA: -7.5/+26.0 mm Hg) between PtcCO2 and PaCO2 . The difference between PtcCO2 -PaCO2 was strongly negatively correlated with HCO3 (-) (r(2) = 0.52, P < 0.001) and PaCO2 (r(2) = 0.58, P < 0.001) and weakly positively correlated with diastolic blood pressure (r(2) = 0.21, P = 0.044), whereas the difference between PtcCO2 -PaCO2 was moderately negatively correlated with diastolic blood pressure (r(2) = 0.33, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between transcutaneous and arterial PO2 and PCO2 measurements in these critically ill dogs was inferior to that reported in similar adult and pediatric human studies. The transcutaneous monitor consistently over-estimated PaO2 and PaCO2 and should not be used to replace arterial blood gas measurements in critically ill dogs requiring blood gas interpretation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".