MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-Oximetry Interference by Hemoglobin-Based Blood Substitutes

2001· article· en· W2047814853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. M. Steinke, A. P. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHemoglobin structure and function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemoglobinCarboxyhemoglobinWhole bloodMethemoglobinSurgeryInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The blood substitutes now being developed from molecularly modified hemoglobin interfere with a wide variety of clinical analyzers, but their effects on cooximeters are unknown. Therefore, we investigated the effects of five hemoglobin-based blood substitutes on the measurements of eight different oximeters and cooximeters: the AVL Omni 6, the AVOXimeters 1000 and 4000, the Ciba Corning (now Bayer) CC270 CO-Oximeter, the Instrumentation Laboratory Synthesis 35, the IL482 and IL682 CO-Oximeters, and the Radiometer OSM3 Hemoximeter. The five blood substitutes in this study were obtained from Apex Bioscience (Research Triangle Park, NC), Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Deerfield, IL), Biopure Corp. (Cambridge, MA), Hemoglobin Therapeutics, and Hemosol, Inc. (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada). A cooximeter control was used to compare the eight different instruments' measurements on unaltered human hemoglobin. The instruments yielded measurements of total hemoglobin concentration in undiluted blood substitutes that were generally not more variable than those on the control material. By contrast, when compared with readings on controls, the test instruments yielded measurements of the fractional concentrations of oxy-, deoxy-, carboxy-, and methemoglobin that showed greater instrument-to-instrument disparities and larger standard deviations about the all-instrument means. In some cases, the interference was even more obvious: five of six cooximeters gave negative carboxyhemoglobin readings on one particular product. Our findings indicate that the instruments will give less accurate but clinically useful measurements in the presence of these hemoglobin-based blood substitutes. IMPLICATIONS: We investigated the effects of five hemoglobin-based blood substitutes on the measurements of eight different cooximeters. Some blood substitutes caused obvious interference, such as negative carboxyhemoglobin readings; however, the findings indicate that cooximeters will generally give less accurate but clinically useful measurements in the presence of the hemoglobin-based blood substitutes that were tested.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicHemoglobin structure and functionFrench-language works237,207