Evaluation of a lithium dilution cardiac output technique as a method for measurement of cardiac output in anesthetized cats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a lithium dilution cardiac output (LiDCO) technique for measurement of CO and determine the agreement between LiDCO and thermodilution CO (TDCO) values in anesthetized cats. ANIMALS: 6 mature cats. PROCEDURE: Cardiac output in isoflurane-anesthetized cats was measured via each technique. To induce different rates of CO in each cat, anesthesia was maintained at > 1.5X end-tidal minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of isoflurane and at 1.3X end-tidal isoflurane MAC with or without administration of dobutamine (1 to 3 microg/kg/min, i.v.). At least 2 comparisons between LiDCO and TDCO values were made at each CO rate. The TDCO indicator was 1.5 mL of 5% dextrose at room temperature; with the LiDCO technique, each cat received 0.005 mmol of lithium/kg (concentration, 0.015 mmol/mL). Serum lithium concentrations were measured prior to the first and following the last CO determination. RESULTS: 35 of 47 recorded comparisons were analyzed; via linear regression analysis (LiDCO vs TDCO values), the coefficient of determination was 0.91. The mean bias (TDCO-LiDCO) was -4 mL/kg/min (limits of agreement, -35.8 to + 27.2 mL/kg/min). The concordance coefficient was 0.94. After the last CO determination, serum lithium concentration was < 0.1 mmol/L in each cat. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated a strong relationship and good agreement between LiDCO and TDCO values; the LiDCO method appears to be a practical, relatively noninvasive method for measurement of CO in anesthetized cats.
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.
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 | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it