The effect of 3 resuscitative fluid therapies on hemostasis as measured by rotational thromboelastometry in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that administration of intravenous fluids impairs hemostasis. Thromboelastometry (TEM) may provide a more sensitive measure of the fluid effects on hemostasis than traditional coagulation tests. OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to determine if resuscitative fluid therapy affects hemostasis, as measured by TEM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a randomized crossover design, 6 healthy dogs were administered intravenous colloid, crystalloid, and hypertonic saline at therapeutic doses. Whole blood samples were taken at baseline, 1, 4, and 8 h posttreatment for TEM analysis and measurement of PT, APTT, and fibrinogen. Univariate ANOVA on transformed data evaluated differences between groups and within groups. When significant differences were noted (P = .003), a Tukey test was performed. RESULTS: A statistically significant interaction between individual dogs and treatment was noted for most TEM variables. There was a significant decrease in clot firmness from baseline in the TEM assessment of the intrinsic pathway. Colloid treatment correlated with significantly higher clot firmness in the TEM extrinsic pathway assessment, which decreased over time, and PT was significantly shorter in colloid-treated dogs. Overall, PT was significantly prolonged at one hour; however, all PT values were within the RI. The fibrinogen concentration was significantly different between all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant doses of resuscitative fluids resulted in a decreased clot firmness in the intrinsic pathway, as measured by TEM, which affected hemostatic variables in healthy dogs. There was also a significant individual response to treatment. The changes noted in this study are not expected to result in clinically apparent bleeding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".