Evaluation of Blood Collection From the Proximal Side of a Fluid Infusion Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine if blood data are unaffected by transfusion method when the blood is sampled from the proximal side of the infusion site under temporary suspension of transfusion. METHODS: In five 30-week-old Japanese white male rabbits, fluid infusion routes were secured via left auricular veins with a disposable plastic indwelling cannula (24-G needle). Solita T3 (22 mL/h) was administered to each animal using a syringe pump. Ten minutes after starting infusion, 2 mL blood was sampled from a distance of 2 cm on the central side of the infusion site with ongoing fluid infusion, from the opposite side (the right auricular vein), and from the central side of the infusion site with suspended fluid infusion. We cross-verified and compared results of 41 biochemical and blood cell examination items for samples collected from the central side with ongoing fluid infusion, from the central side with suspended fluid infusion, and from the opposite sides by comparison with Tukey's test. RESULTS: A significant difference was noted in tested items between blood samples collected from the proximal side with ongoing fluid infusion and those collected from the proximal side and from the contralateral side with suspended fluid infusion. Conversely, for all test items, no significant difference was noted in the test item data between blood samples collected from the proximal side with suspended fluid infusion and those collected from the contralateral side. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully verified and demonstrated that blood samples collected from the proximal side of the infusion site remain unaffected by fluid infusion when drawn under the conditions of suspended fluid infusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".