MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564320983

Validation of noninvasive hemoglobin measurements using co-oximetry in anesthetized dogs.

2016· article· en· W2564320983 on OpenAlexaff
Matt Read, Jenna Rondeau, Grace P. S. Kwong

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemoglobinMedicineSurgeryNuclear medicineInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technology allows noninvasive measurement of total hemoglobin (Hb) in humans through use of multiple wavelength co-oximetry. This monitor is now available to the veterinary market but no studies have been performed to validate its use in animals. This study investigated the use of co-oximetry to measure Hb in anesthetized dogs by comparing "gold standard" Hb measurements from a laboratory (LabHb) with those measured by the co-oximeter (SpHb). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the monitor had a bias of -3.01 (SpHb values were lower than LabHb values) and that 64.5% of measured SpHb values were greater than 20 g/L different from their associated LabHb values. Based on the results of this study, use of co-oximetry to measure Hb in anesthetized dogs is not accurate enough to direct treatment. Further studies are warranted in other animal species and under other clinical conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207