Inaccuracy of Sodium Measurement in Patients with Severe Hypernatremia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We observed discordant sodium results from a patient with severe hypernatremia such that whole-blood analysis produced results up to 9.6 mmol/L higher than plasma sodium obtained on the same collection. We investigated this bias by comparing other patients' sodium results and performing comparisons of 3 blood gas and 2 chemistry analyzers. METHODS: First, the laboratory information system was queried for whole-blood sodium results >160 mmol/L, which were used for comparison against plasma results from the same collection. Second, whole blood was collected from a healthy donor, a portion of which was spiked with sodium chloride to generate 8 samples with target concentrations of 140 to 185 mmol/L. Whole-blood sodium was measured in duplicate on the ABL90, RAPIDPoint 500, and GEM 4000. Plasma sodium was then measured in duplicate on the Architect c8000 and Cobas c702. Finally, plasma was injected on the blood gas analyzers to measure sodium in singleton. RESULTS: Overall, 53 paired results from patients showed a significant positive bias on the ABL90 relative to Vitros when sodium was >160 mmol/L. The magnitude of difference was insignificant within the reference range but increased proportionately with concentration. The magnitude and pattern of positive bias in ABL90 sodium results were consistent with the observation in patient results. CONCLUSION: In severe hypernatremia, sodium results produced by blood gas and plasma analyzers can differ significantly.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".