MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041974213 · doi:10.1177/026765910001500507

Simple modified ultrafiltration

2000· article· en· W2041974213 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard J. Myers, Richard Leadon, Lance B. Mitchell, David B. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrafiltration (renal)HematocritCannulaOncotic pressureSimplicityCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgerySurgeryBiomedical engineeringAnesthesiaChromatographyInternal medicineAlbumin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After reviewing all available methods of modified ultrafiltration (MUF), an attempt was made to develop a more simplified approach to this beneficial method of post-bypass fluid removal by withdrawing blood from the right atrium and reinfusing into the aortic cannula (venoarterial). The simplicity of operation, ease of setup and analysis of hemoglobin, hematocrit, total proteins and colloid osmotic pressure, and fluid removed were examined in 12 consecutive neonatal and pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Results indicate that this simplified modified ultrafiltration (SMUF) is comparable to all other methods of MUF by achieving dramatic improvements in all parameters measured. In addition, SMUF provides the perfusionist with the ability to run conventional ultrafiltration throughout the bypass procedure, using this one circuit design. As well as finding the learning curve for SMUF to be very short, this method was found to be superior in its simplicity of operation, ease of setup, reduced risk of complications and acceptance by the surgeon and anesthetist.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207