Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The capillary blood gas (CBG) is often utilized for routine assessment of ventilation in children with chronic pulmonary problems.Arterial blood gas analysis for routine monitoring is challenging in the stable child due to difficulty obtaining a sample and associated pain.Although CBG's tend to be less painful than arterial sticks, many children still become apprehensive and upset.Anxiety producing hyperventilation may alter CO 2 .End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO 2 ) is a noninvasive measure of ventilation.If correlation is demonstrated between CO 2 readings, ETCO 2 could replace the CBG for routine monitoring.However, underestimation of ETCO 2 may occur with obstructive lung disease due to dead space ventilation.Design: A prospective study was performed in a pediatric pulmonary clinic.Any child who required a CBG was invited to partipate in the study regardless of diagnosis.Participants and Setting: Fifty-six subjects participated in the study and were classified as either bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), cerebral palsy (CP), or neuromuscular disease (NMD).Materials/Methods: The BCI 8200 Capnometer was utilized for the study.A baseline ETCO 2 was measured in a steady state prior to placement of the CBG warmer.A second ETCO 2 was obtained simultaneously as the CBG was being drawn.Results: Baseline ETCO 2 readings were more comparable to the CBG than simultaneous measurements and was therefore utilized for statistical analysis.The overall mean was -2.4 with a standard deviation of 6.44.Conclusions/Significance: ETCO 2 obtained in a steady state is comparable to CBG PCO 2 in individuals with no underlying lung disease including CP and NMD unless bronchiectasis is present.ETCO 2 could be substituted for a CBG on a case by case basis.We recommend obtaining both measurements initially for comparison.Even when values correlate, a CBG should be considered if the child is acutely ill.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.746 | 0.532 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".