Validation of noninvasive hemoglobin measurements using co-oximetry in anesthetized dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".