Effect of haemodilution with diaspirin cross‐linked haemoglobin on the oxygen reserve in a rodent model of surgical blood loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of pre-operative haemodilution is limited by the reduction in haemoglobin concentration. Acellular haemoglobin-based oxygen carriers provide an alternative to colloid as a haemodiluent, potentially extending the safe limits of this procedure. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether haemodilution with a cross-linked haemoglobin solution, diaspirin cross-linked haemoglobin solution (DCLHb), would enhance the oxygen reserve compared to pentastarch. Sprague Dawley rats were placed in a metabolic box to directly measure systemic oxygen consumption (VO2). Rats were randomized to be haemodiluted to a cellular haemoglobin of 80 g L(-1) with either DCLHb or pentastarch. Oxygen reserve was assessed during isovolemic haemorrhage by determining the critical oxygen delivery (DO2crit) and haemoglobin concentration at the point of oxygen supply dependency (OSD). Following haemodilution and for the duration of the experiment, cardiac index (CI) was significantly lower and systemic vascular resistance was significantly higher in the DCLHb than the pentastarch group. The DO2crit (3.2 +/- 0.4 mL minAg(-1) and 3.4 +/- 0.5 mL minAg(-1), DCLHb versus pentastarch) and cellular haemoglobin concentration (51 +/- 9 g L(-1) and 48 +/- 9 g L(-1)), at which rats entered OSD were similar in both groups. Total haemoglobin concentration (cellular and plasma DCLHb) and arterial oxygen content were significantly higher in the DCLHb group (total haemoglobin, 66 +/- 8 g L(-1) and arterial content, 9.2 +/- 1.4 mL dL(-1)) compared to the pentastarch group (total haemoglobin, 48 +/- 9 g L(-1) and arterial content, 7.3 +/- 1.4 mL dL(-1)). Oxygen extraction ratios increased from baseline levels to 0.53 +/- 0.07 and 0.56 +/- 0.1, for the DCLHb and pentastarch groups, respectively, and were not significantly different. The increase in arterial oxygen content from DCLHb in plasma was offset by the decrease in CI observed in this group. Plasma DCLHb did not extend the limits of haemodilution beyond the capacity of the cellular haemoglobin concentration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".