MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023443139 · doi:10.1089/ham.2008.1027

Performance of Evacuated Blood Collection Tubes at High Altitude

2008· article· en· W2023443139 on OpenAlexafffund
Meaghan J. MacNutt, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueHigh Altitude Medicine & Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsVacutainerEffects of high altitude on humansBlood collectionAltitude (triangle)Environmental scienceMedicineBlood volumeAnesthesiaEmergency medicineInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MacNutt, Meaghan J. and A. William Sheel. Performance of evacuated blood collection tubes at high altitude. High Alt. Med. Biol. 9:235–237, 2008—Researchers and clinicians may not be aware that the performance of evacuated blood collection systems is impaired at high altitude. We tested four sizes of Vacutainer® tubes at altitudes ranging from sea level to 5341 m to and determined that draw volumes are reduced by approximately 0.5 mL for every 1000 m gain in terrestrial elevation. Insufficient blood volume can limit possibilities for testing, inappropriate blood to additive ratios can skew test results and with smaller tubes at higher altitudes there is a possibility of air embolism. With foresight and proper planning, these problems can be avoided, and evacuated blood collection tubes can still be used safely and effectively at high altitude.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigh Altitude Medicine & BiologySame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207