Venous and arterial base deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma centers are increasingly advocating the replacement of arterial blood gas measurements with venous blood gas measurements for simplification of base deficit (BD) determination. These values have never been demonstrated to agree in important trauma populations, such as for patients in occult shock (OS) or the elderly. The goal of this study was to investigate the level of agreement between venous and arterial BDs from blood gases in critically ill or injured patients, specifically in OS and the elderly. METHODS: This is a retrospective, consecutive, cohort study using matched pairs of venous and arterial blood gases from patients admitted to the Trauma and Neurosurgery Intensive Care Unit in a Level I trauma center in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Agreement between near simultaneous arterial and venous BD was calculated using the Bland-Altman method. McNemar's test was used for differences in BDs in the presence or absence of OS and in elderly patients. RESULTS: BDs for 466 arterial and venous samples from 72 patients were compared pairwise. There was no significant difference between samples (p = 0.88). Ninety-eight percent of samples were within 3.0 mmol/L of each other. No significant differences were detected between venous and arterial BD in the presence of OS or in the elderly (p = 0.72 and p = 0.25, respectively). CONCLUSION: Arterial and venous BDs agree, including in the presence of OS and in the elderly. Consideration may be given to venous sampling both in the intensive care unit or in other areas of care, such as the trauma bay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".