Comparison of Hematologic Values in Blood Samples with Lithium Heparin or Dipotassium Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid Anticoagulants in Hispaniolan Amazon Parrots (Amazona Ventralis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood samples were collected from 20 Hispaniolan Amazon parrots (Amazona ventralis) and were divided into tubes that contained dipotassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (K2EDTA) and lithium heparin. Complete blood cell counts were determined in each sample within 2 hours of collection. The level of agreement in results was moderate for plasma protein, packed cell volume (PCV), and leukocyte, monocyte, and lymphocyte counts between the anticoagulants. Plasma protein and PCV values were significantly lower in samples with lithium heparin than in those with K2EDTA, whereas lymphocyte numbers were significantly higher in lithium heparin samples than in K2EDTA samples. The level of agreement was good for the other cell types (heterophils, eosinophils, and basophils) when comparing the different anticoagulants. The poor level of agreement between anticoagulants with the increase in thrombocyte clumping in lithium heparin samples indicates that the use of lithium heparin as anticoagulant may affect thrombocyte count. No negative effects on morphology and staining of blood cells were apparent in smears from heparin samples compared with K2EDTA samples. Within the different values compared, the limits of agreement are small enough to be confident that lithium heparin can be used for routine CBC counts in a clinical setting. The use of the same anticoagulant should be recommended to follow trends within the same patient, especially when considering plasma protein concentration, PCV, and lymphocyte count.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".