Arterialised Capillary Blood Gases in Accident and Emergency Department Patients - a Reliable Alternative to Arterial Sampling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 
 
 OBJECTIVES: Many patients with respiratory complaints who present to the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department have an arterial blood gas analysis performed at some point. It is our belief that there is no difference between arterial and capillary blood gas values in patients presenting to the A & E department. It is also anticipated that body temperature and blood pressure may play a part, so these will also be reported and associations will be investigated. METHODS: Patients who require arterial blood gas analysis at any stage during their stay in the A & E department at the Northern General hospital of Sheffield are eligible for inclusion in the study. In total there were 32 patients. PROCEDURE:Transvasin cream was applied to the ear lobe to improve local blood flow by dilating the capillaries. When ten minutes have elapsed after the application of the Transvasin cream, a capillary sample is taken from the ear lobe by the researchers. CONCLUSION: From the t-tests conducted, no significant difference was seen between the arterial and capillary blood gas samples for the parameters pO2 and O2 saturation. However, for pCO2, pH and [HCO3] there were significant differences observed. This result seems to disagree with the findings of most other studies that have so far shown stronger correlations generally for pH, pCO2 and bicarbonate, than for oxygen measuring parameters.
 
 
 
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".