Evaluation of the expected ventilatory response to metabolic acidosis in chronic hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Expected pCO 2 during metabolic acidosis should be computed to rule out superimposing respiratory acid‐base disorders, the latter being featured by too high or too low pCO 2 than expected. At least 4 different and inconsistent formulas exist. Based on the common practical rule, the reduction of pCO 2 equals 1.2 multiplied by the reduction of serum bicarbonate ([ ]), whereas pCO 2 equals to the 2 digit after pH decimal point according to Fulop. Instead, based on Winters' formula, pCO 2 equals to 1.5 times [ ] + 8. Finally, a very simple formula has been proposed, it reads pCO 2 = [ ] + 15. Beyond the evident simplicity, the latter has been effective in a small hemodialysis cohort but validation in a larger dataset is highly desirable. Methods: Formulas have been applied to 180 hemodialysis patients' blood samples dataset featured by mild metabolic acidosis (HCO 3 ≥ 14 mEq/L) and root mean square errors (RMSE) associated with each formula were computed. pCO 2 reference range was computed as expected pCO 2 ± 2 RMSE. Findings: Fulop's rule and Winters' formula are associated with large prediction errors. Conversely, the common practical rule and the very simple formula are both featured by the same low error (1.7 mmHg). They further show good agreement and pick out the same reference range. Discussion: Superimposing respiratory acid‐base disorders can be promptly and effectively ruled out by computing expected pCO 2 as [ ] + 15, a very simple formula proved to be interchangeable with the common practical rule that requires computes and assumptions, but leads to same results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".