Comparison of noninvasive cardiac output measured by use of partial carbon dioxide rebreathing or the lithium dilution method in anesthetized foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiac output (CO) measured by use of the partial carbon dioxide rebreathing method (NICO) or lithium dilution method (LiDCO) in anesthetized foals. SAMPLE POPULATION: Data reported in 2 other studies for 18 neonatal foals that weighed 32 to 61 kg. PROCEDURES: Foals were anesthetized and instrumented to measure direct blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood gases, end-tidal isoflurane and carbon dioxide concentrations, and CO. Various COs were achieved by administration of dobutamine, norepinephrine, vasopressin, phenylephrine, and isoflurane to allow comparisons between LiDCO and NICO methods. Measurements were obtained in duplicate or triplicate. We allowed 2 minutes between measurements for LiDCO and 3 minutes for NICO after achieving a stable hemodynamic plane for at least 10 to 15 minutes at each CO. RESULTS: 217 comparisons were made. Correlation (r = 0.77) was good between the 2 methods for all determinations. Mean +/- SD measurements of cardiac index for all comparisons with the LiDCO and NICO methods were 138 +/- 62 mL/kg/min (range, 40 to 381 mL/kg/min) and 154 +/- 55 mL/kg/min (range, 54 to 358 mL/kg/min), respectively. Mean difference (bias) between LiDCO and NICO measurements was -17.3 mL/kg/min with a precision (1.96 x SD) of 114 mL/kg/min (range, -131.3 to 96.7). Mean of the differences of LiDCO and NICO measurements was 4.37 + (0.87 x NICO value). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The NICO method is a viable, noninvasive method for determination of CO in neonatal foals with normal respiratory function. It compares well with the more invasive LiDCO method.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".