MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989295041 · doi:10.1159/000194009

A Single-Breath Method of Alveolar O <sub>2</sub> Determination

2009· article· en· W1989295041 on OpenAlexaff
V. Vu-Dinh Minh, D. Patakas, Lynne Davies, Brian J. Sproule

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRest (music)Significant differenceMean differenceArterial bloodExpired airNuclear medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We designed a single-breath method of alveolar O2 determination, requiring only a single tidal breath expirate and concomitant arterial blood sample. The PAO2 equation used in our method was derived by applying the Bohr equation to both O2 and CO2 and independant of VO2, VCO2 and RQ. In 35 patients with different degrees of airway obstruction, at rest and during exercise, the single-breath method agreed well with the classic method of PAO2 determination which required 3 min of expired gas collection and derivation of VO2, VCO2 and RQ. The mean difference between the PAO2 estimates by the two methods was 0.36 mm Hg as calculated for all patients, both at rest and during exercise. At rest, in 2 out of 35 cases the difference was greater than 2 mm Hg and such difference happened only in 1 case during exercise. A good correlation existed between the two PAO2 estimates by the two methods (r ranging from 0.977 to 0.996). The data indicated that single-breath method of PAO2 determination was reliable. Its extreme simplicity would facilitate greatly the assessment of gas exchange efficiency in situations where both patient's cooperation and laborator equipment are less than optimum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespirationSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207