MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949575777 · doi:10.1111/vec.12858

A pilot study comparing bone marrow aspirates and venous blood for emergency point‐of‐care blood parameters in healthy dogs

2019· article· en· W2949575777 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey Ackert, Søren Boysen, Teresa Schiller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematocritVenipunctureComplete blood countPoint of careVenous bloodBlood urea nitrogenAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyRenal function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To compare intravenous and intraosseous blood aspirates using point‐of‐care diagnostic equipment available in veterinary hospitals. Design Prospective study. Setting Private referral hospital. Animals Dogs undergoing a tibial plateau leveling osteotomy or extracapsular anterior cruciate ligament stabilization procedure were enrolled. Methods Under general anesthesia, simultaneous 0.5 mL intravenous and intraosseous blood samples were collected from the jugular vein and proximal tibia, respectively. Samples were evaluated in duplicate within 10 minutes of collection and averaged for each of the following parameters: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), glucose, packed cell volume, total plasma protein (TPP), plasma lactate, sodium, potassium, chloride, urea, glucose, pH, anion gap, pO2, and pCO2. Normalcy was tested with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. A Student's t‐test and Bland–Altman plot were used to compare intravenous and intraosseous samples. Results Twelve dogs were recruited into the study. There were statistically significant differences between intravenous and intraosseous samples for sodium (P = 0.0216), chloride (P = 0.0225), BUN (P = 0.014), and potassium (P < 0.0001), respectively. No significant differences were detected for the other parameters evaluated. Discussion The intraosseous space provides an easily accessible, noncollapsible alternative for assessing blood parameters. Omitting potassium, the statistically significant differences noted between sites was not felt to be clinically significant. Although statistically insignificant, the large difference in hematocrit values indicates that the samples should not be used interchangeably. Conclusion Intraosseous aspirates, excluding potassium and hematocrit, appear to be a reliable alternative for assessing most point‐of‐care analytes in healthy dogs, although a larger sample size should be investigated. The application of these data in shock patients is unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical CareSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207