Comparison of Gravity Collection Versus Suction Collection for Transfusion Purposes in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood donation is an essential step in transfusion medicine that must take into account the donor's welfare, collection effectiveness, and blood product quality. This prospective study enrolled 13 canine blood donors, each subjected to both gravity and suction collection methods, in a randomized order. Clinical parameters, including heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and rectal temperature (RT), were evaluated at four time points, including when the donor was on the floor and on the collection table, and before and after blood donation. The number of times the donor and needle required repositioning, the duration of the donation, the noise created by the apparatus, and the presence of a hematoma were evaluated. The weight, index of hemolysis, and hematocrit of each unit of blood were recorded. There was no significant difference between collection methods for either the clinical parameters at each time point or the prevalence of hematoma formation, the frequency of needle repositioning, the hemolysis index, or hematocrit. Collection by suction was noisier (P < 0.0001), faster (P = 0.004), and associated with significantly less donor repositioning (P = 0.007). Suction appears to be a safe and cost-effective method that should be considered to optimize blood donation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".