RE-EVALUATION OF THE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR ETHANOL IN THE CALCULATION OF THE OSMOLAL GAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objectives It is well-known that ethanol (EtOH) demonstrates non-ideal solute behaviour in plasma. This is reflected by its larger than expected contribution to the plasma osmolality. Published multiplicative correction factors for the EtOH contribution range from 1.20 to 1.25. The objective of this study is to determine an optimal correction factor specific to the instrumentation at Vancouver General (VGH) and St. Paul's (SPH) Hospitals. Methods Laboratory data from patients presenting to the two respective emergency department between August 01, 2007 and November 30, 2008 were extracted from the Sunset database. Plasma sodium, urea, glucose, and EtOH were measured using the two high-volume chemistry analyzers employed at the sites: the Siemens (previously Dade) RXL (VGH) and the Siemens (previously Bayer) Advia 1650 (SPH). Plasma osmolality was measured by freezing-point depression and calculated (excluding the EtOH contribution) using the following standard formula (in SI units): 2 [Na] + [Urea] + [Glucose]. Patients without EtOH data or who had undetectable EtOH were excluded as were patients with methanol or ethylene glycol present. Standard regression statistics were employed. Results Twelve hundred and fifty-three patient samples (n=823 from SPH and n=430 from VGH) were included. Empirical correction factor m, satisfying, Osmol gap (mmol/kg) =m[EtOH] (mmol/L) was consistently found to be 1.15 for VGH, SPH and both combined. Conclusions The correction factor of 1.15 for ethanol from the current study appears to be more representative and reliable. Further studies to evaluate its validity in other hospital sites as well as its utility in screening patients with known toxic alcohol ingestion will be warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".