FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2065449924> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2065449924 endingPage "1118" @default.
• W2065449924 startingPage "1117" @default.
• W2065449924 abstract "To the Editors:The article by Low et al. (Low JA, Ludwin SK, Fisher S. Severe fetal asphyxia associated with neuropathology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1383-5) was read with interest. A detailed reading of this article, however, raised significant questions and some confusion, particularly related to the acid-base findings as depicted in Table I.The first question relates to the Kleihauer-Betke test, which revealed 12% of fetal cells in the maternal circulation and yet the newborn hematocrit was 30%. Given an anticipated fetal blood volume of 100 ml/kg, a total fetal blood volume of 300 ml would be liberal. Given the newborn hematocrit of 30%, it is unlikely that the fetus bled more than one half its blood volume. The Kleihauer-Betke test finding of 12% fetal cells would presumably represent more than the entire fetal circulating blood volume. How did the authors explain this observation?In the article text the authors state that the umbilical artery–based deficit was 21.5 mmol/L. In their referenceTable I does not depict this numeric value. The details ofTable I, particularly the umbilical vessel values, are very confusing. For the base deficit to be higher in the umbilical cord vein is highly unusual. Likewise, the values listed for oxygen tension are quite unbelievable. The carbon dioxide tension being higher in the umbilical vein is most unlikely. Either there have been major laboratory errors in these values or some major errors occurred in the translation and publication of these values. Clarification of these confusing data would be of benefit if there is a suitable explanation. To the Editors:The article by Low et al. (Low JA, Ludwin SK, Fisher S. Severe fetal asphyxia associated with neuropathology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1383-5) was read with interest. A detailed reading of this article, however, raised significant questions and some confusion, particularly related to the acid-base findings as depicted in Table I.The first question relates to the Kleihauer-Betke test, which revealed 12% of fetal cells in the maternal circulation and yet the newborn hematocrit was 30%. Given an anticipated fetal blood volume of 100 ml/kg, a total fetal blood volume of 300 ml would be liberal. Given the newborn hematocrit of 30%, it is unlikely that the fetus bled more than one half its blood volume. The Kleihauer-Betke test finding of 12% fetal cells would presumably represent more than the entire fetal circulating blood volume. How did the authors explain this observation?In the article text the authors state that the umbilical artery–based deficit was 21.5 mmol/L. In their referenceTable I does not depict this numeric value. The details ofTable I, particularly the umbilical vessel values, are very confusing. For the base deficit to be higher in the umbilical cord vein is highly unusual. Likewise, the values listed for oxygen tension are quite unbelievable. The carbon dioxide tension being higher in the umbilical vein is most unlikely. Either there have been major laboratory errors in these values or some major errors occurred in the translation and publication of these values. Clarification of these confusing data would be of benefit if there is a suitable explanation. The article by Low et al. (Low JA, Ludwin SK, Fisher S. Severe fetal asphyxia associated with neuropathology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1383-5) was read with interest. A detailed reading of this article, however, raised significant questions and some confusion, particularly related to the acid-base findings as depicted in Table I. The first question relates to the Kleihauer-Betke test, which revealed 12% of fetal cells in the maternal circulation and yet the newborn hematocrit was 30%. Given an anticipated fetal blood volume of 100 ml/kg, a total fetal blood volume of 300 ml would be liberal. Given the newborn hematocrit of 30%, it is unlikely that the fetus bled more than one half its blood volume. The Kleihauer-Betke test finding of 12% fetal cells would presumably represent more than the entire fetal circulating blood volume. How did the authors explain this observation? In the article text the authors state that the umbilical artery–based deficit was 21.5 mmol/L. In their referenceTable I does not depict this numeric value. The details ofTable I, particularly the umbilical vessel values, are very confusing. For the base deficit to be higher in the umbilical cord vein is highly unusual. Likewise, the values listed for oxygen tension are quite unbelievable. The carbon dioxide tension being higher in the umbilical vein is most unlikely. Either there have been major laboratory errors in these values or some major errors occurred in the translation and publication of these values. Clarification of these confusing data would be of benefit if there is a suitable explanation." @default.
• W2065449924 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2065449924 creator A5009626642 @default.
• W2065449924 date "1997-05-01" @default.
• W2065449924 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2065449924 title "The values cannot work" @default.
• W2065449924 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70417-4" @default.
• W2065449924 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9166181" @default.
• W2065449924 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2065449924 type Work @default.
• W2065449924 sameAs 2065449924 @default.
• W2065449924 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2065449924 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2065449924 hasAuthorship W2065449924A5009626642 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C172680121 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C202751555 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C2776955114 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C2777411675 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C2780959883 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C2993207723 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C37557685 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C540031477 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C105702510 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C126322002 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C164705383 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C172680121 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C178790620 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C185592680 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C202751555 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C2776955114 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C2777411675 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C2779234561 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C2780959883 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C2993207723 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C37557685 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C540031477 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C54355233 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C55493867 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C71924100 @default.
• W2065449924 hasConceptScore W2065449924C86803240 @default.
• W2065449924 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2065449924 hasLocation W20654499241 @default.
• W2065449924 hasLocation W20654499242 @default.
• W2065449924 hasOpenAccess W2065449924 @default.
• W2065449924 hasPrimaryLocation W20654499241 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2047884988 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2065757845 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2066212534 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2088048017 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2091719539 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2095420804 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2384872637 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2392339125 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W2432508760 @default.
• W2065449924 hasRelatedWork W4230347894 @default.
• W2065449924 hasVolume "176" @default.
• W2065449924 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2065449924 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2065449924 magId "2065449924" @default.
• W2065449924 workType "article" @default.