Oxygen therapeutics (blood substitutes) in cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Discuss and summarize recent published literature related to the use of 'blood substitutes' in cardiac surgery patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Concerns about safety, inventory and the cost of allogenic blood transfusion have led to the continued interest to find an ideal oxygen carrier 'blood substitute' for cardiac surgery patients. Two classes of oxygen therapeutics 'blood substitutes' are being investigated: (1) perfluorocarbons are synthetic fluorinated hydrocarbons which increase dissolved oxygen in the fluid phase and (2) hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers, modified to improve oxygen dissociation properties and side effects profiles of free hemoglobin. Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers from bovine and human sources are being tested in phase III trials in cardiac surgery patients as well as a variety of other surgical and nonsurgical settings. Recombinant human hemoglobin and encapsulated hemoglobins of any source are emerging. Safety and cost effectiveness are being evaluated for their use as an alternative to blood transfusion or along with other strategies of blood conservation in cardiac surgery. SUMMARY: One hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (Hemopure) has been approved for use in humans in South Africa as well as another hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (Gelenpol) and a perfluorocarbon (Perfluoron) in Russia. Phase III trials in Europe and North America will be concluded very soon. We anticipate seeing one or two products approved in North America and Europe by the year 2003/2004.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".