THE EFFECTS OF HEMODILUTION WITH HEMOLINK™ UPON HEMODYNAMICS AND BLOOD FLOW DISTRIBUTION IN ANESTHETIZED DOGS<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemoglobin based oxygen-carrying solutions (HBOCs) as hemoglobin replacement therapeutics are being tested for clinical use. Some of these products are associated with elevations in both systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances but their effect on the distribution of blood flow to major organs in larger animals have not been extensively described. We tested two formulations of o-raffinose cross-linked human hemoglobin, Hemolink (frozen-Hemolink-1 and refrigerated Hemolink-2) and compared them to Pentaspan, a colloid volume expander in extensive clinical use. Cardiovascular measurements and the distribution of blood flow (radionuclide-labeled microspheres) to the major organs were determined in Beagle dogs (n = 5 per group). After baseline measurements, either Hemolink-1, Hemolink-2, or Pentaspan was exchange transfused in an isovolemic manner (resulting in hematocrit reduction to approximately 20-25%); measurements were made 30, 60, 120 and 180 min post-exchange. There was no significant difference in cardiac output, mean arterial pressures and systemic or pulmonary vascular resistances after exchange in any of the three groups. Myocardial blood flow increased in all three groups post-exchange but the increase was more sustained in the Hemolink groups. Endocardial/epicardial flow ratios were also maintained after exchange in all groups. Thus, Hemolink is ideally suited for volume replacement when used in conjunction with acute normovolemic hemodilution because under these circumstances, the adverse hemodynamic effects are alleviated while extra hemoglobin is added to the blood.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".