Effect of administration of water enriched in O2 by injection or electrolysis on transcutaneous oxygen pressure in anesthetized pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral administration of oxygenated water has been shown to improve blood oxygenation and could be an alternate way for oxygen (O2) supply. In this experiment, tissue oxygenation was compared in anesthetized pigs receiving a placebo or water enriched in O2 by injection or a new electrolytic process. METHODS: Forty-two pigs randomized in three groups received either mineral water as placebo or water enriched in O2 by injection or the electrolytic process (10 mL/kg in the stomach). Hemodynamic parameters, partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood (PaO2), skin blood flow, and tissue oxygenation (transcutaneous oxygen pressure, or TcPO2) were monitored during 90 minutes of general anesthesia. Absorption and tissue distribution of the three waters administered were assessed using dilution of deuterium oxide. RESULTS: Mean arterial pressure, heart rate, PaO2, arteriovenous oxygen difference, and water absorption from the gut were not significantly different among the three groups. The deuterium to protium ratio was also similar in the plasma, skin, and muscle at the end of the protocol. Skin blood flow decreased in the three groups. TcPO2 slowly decreased over the last 60 minutes of the experiment in the three groups, but when compared to the control group, the values remained significantly higher in animals that received the water enriched in O2 by electrolysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this protocol, water enriched in O2 by electrolysis lessened the decline of peripheral tissue oxygenation. This observation is compatible with the claim that the electrolytic process generates water clathrates which trap O2 and facilitate O2 diffusion along pressure gradients. Potential applications of O2-enriched water include an alternate method of oxygen supply.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".