Analytical interferences resulting from intravenous lipid emulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Lipid resuscitation therapy using intravenous lipid emulsion (IVLE) for drug overdoses has gained widespread use. However, there is little information regarding its adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: We performed lipemic interference studies on typical automated platforms to investigate the potential of lipid resuscitation therapy to interfere with the reliability and turnaround time of analytes that would be of interest in acute intoxications. We also tested methods to minimize interferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum pools were supplemented with increasing concentrations of Intralipid-20%(®) (0-30%). Analyses were performed on Beckman-Coulter DXC800 and DXI and Roche Modular-P. Analytes demonstrating significant interference were re-measured after centrifugation (14 000 × g for 10 minutes). RESULTS: Triglyceride and glycerol-blanked triglyceride concentrations were similar in IVLE-free samples. However, with addition of IVLE, concentrations were markedly different (139 vs. 76 mmol/L). There was no appreciable interference on the troponin-I, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, bicarbonate or urea assays. Albumin and magnesium assays demonstrated significant interference. Amylase, lipase, phosphate, creatinine, total protein, ALT, CK and bilirubin became unmeasurable in IVLE-supplemented samples. Whereas glucose measurement by potentiometry was free of interference, colorimetric methodology was error prone. Centrifugation removed > 90% of glycerol-blanked triglyceride (max = 5.8 mmol/L), dramatically reducing lipid interferences. DISCUSSION: IVLE results in appreciable analytical interferences at concentrations demonstrated in lipid resuscitation therapy. Of particular concern is the marked interference on glucose and magnesium, which may result in unsuccessful and potentially harmful interventions. Major implications for patient care include reporting of incorrect results and delays in the reporting of time-sensitive results. Whenever possible, blood samples should be collected prior to initiating lipid therapy. Interferences can be minimized by brief centrifugation at relatively low speeds on equipment readily available in most core labs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".