Experimental study on a new type citrate anticoagulant hemodialysate in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we initiated a new hemodialysate with citrate buffer, observed the factors that influence the citrate concentration of solution in hollow fibers when using citrate hemodialysate, and observed the anticoagulant effect and safety of the citrate hemodialysate in the experiment in dogs. Methods: Ten dogs were given intermittent hemodialysis and were divided into 3 groups according to hemodialysis procedures. Group 1 was saline‐flush hemodialysed with bicarbonate hemodialysate; Group 2 was hemodialysed with citrate hemodialysis without any anticoagulant; Group 3 was hemodialysed with bicarbonate hemodialysate and heparin. ACT, Ca++, BUN, Cr, ALT, AST, TBIL, DBIL, Na+, Cl−, , and venous pressure were monitored in the animals of each group during hemodialysis. Results: During the hemodialysis in Group 1, venous pressure increased lastingly, resulting in the failure of hemodialysis for 2 hours. Hemodialysis for 2 hours in Group 2 were all finished successfully. ACT was extended and Ca++ decreased obviously in the venous end during hemodialysis. And ALT, AST, Ca++, K+, Na+, Cl−, after the hemodialysis in Group 2 were not changed (P > 0.05). Moreover, the clearance rate of the dialyzers with citrate dialysate increased significantly compared with those of saline‐flush and heparin anticoagulation. Conclusions: The anticoagulant and dialytic effects of the new type citrate hemodialysis are satisfactory and better than that of saline‐flush.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".