Effects of Syringe Type and Storage Temperature on Results of Blood Gas Analysis in Arterial Blood of Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results of arterial blood gas analysis can be biased by pre-analytical factors, such as time to analysis, syringe type, and temperature during storage. However, the acceptable delay between time of collection and analysis for equine arterial blood gas remains unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Dedicated plastic syringes provide better stability of arterial blood gases than multipurpose plastic syringes. ANIMALS: Eight mares, 1 stallion, and 1 gelding, ages 3 to 10 years old. METHODS: Arterial blood samples were collected in a glass syringe, a plastic syringe designated for blood gas collection, and a multipurpose tuberculin plastic syringe. Blood samples were stored at ambient temperature or in iced water. For each sample, partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2), and pH were measured within a few minutes of collection and at 5, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after collection. RESULTS: Collection into glass syringes stored in iced water provided adequate PaO2 results for up to 117 +/- 35 minutes, whereas blood collected in either of the plastic syringes resulted in a variation >10 mm Hg after 10 +/- 3 to 17 +/- 2 minutes, depending on the storage conditions. Plastic syringes kept at ambient temperature offered more stability for PaCO2 analysis because they could be stored up to 83 +/- 16 minutes without significant variations. Values of pH did not show variations more than 0.02 for the first hour, irrespectively of storage condition. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Glass syringes placed on ice are preferable for analysis of PaO2. Blood collected in plastic syringes should be analyzed within 10 minutes, irrespective of the storage temperature, to ensure the accuracy of PaO2 values.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".