Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in cardiopulmonary bypass equipment have played a critical role in improving outcomes for cardiac surgery patients. Recent advancements include reduced priming volumes, biocompatible coatings and gaseous microemboli handling, as well as the incorporation of an arterial filter into the oxygenator.The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive clinical evaluation of adult oxygenators on the market. Oxygenators assessed included the Sorin Synthesis(®) (n = 30), the Sorin Inspire 6F(®) (n = 10) and Inspire 8F(®) (n = 30), the Terumo FX15(®) (n = 13) and FX25(®) (n = 30), the Maquet Quadrox-i(®) (n = 30) and the Medtronic Fusion(®) (n = 30). Parameters assessed included functional prime volumes, gas exchange, pressure gradients and the effects on patient hematology.The Synthesis had the largest functional prime volume (1426 ml), the FX15 the lowest (956 ml). The Inspire 6F, 8F and Fusion had the greatest O2 transfer. The Sorin oxygenators required the lowest sweep gas flows to obtain a PaCO2 of 40 mmHg. The Sorin oxygenators had the largest pressure gradients. While no differences were observed for hemoglobin and platelet levels post cross-clamp removal, the Sorin Synthesis and Inspire 8F had the largest increases in white blood cell (WBC) counts (122% and 141% of baseline, respectively) and neutrophils (162% and 185% of baseline, respectively).The data demonstrate that no single product is superior in all aspects. The choice of ideal oxygenator depends on the aspect(s) of oxygenator performance the perfusion team believes most clinically acceptable based on available data.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".