Search

Introduction: This paper seeks to identify which of three published formulas used for estimating the blood volume of normal human subjects correlates most closely with blood volumes measured in a published study where erythrocyte volume was determined by a method using 51Cr and a nonradioactive dye was used to determine the plasma volume. Methods: Blood volumes predicted by three published algorithms were compared with blood volume estimates from a study by Retzlaff et al. using the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test and a robust version of the Bland–Altman test. Results: When applied to a sample of normal subjects selected from Mayo Clinic personnel and patients, the Nadler formula correlated more closely with blood volume measured using a radio nucleotide technique than did the Allen formula or one based on a saline haemodilution technique. Conclusions: The Nadler formula correlated more closely with blood volume measurements derived from Retzlaff's study than the other formulas for estimating blood volume in a population with height and weight distribution more consistent with that seen in North America. It should be used in preference to the Allen formula for estimating blood volume in adult patients currently undergoing cardiac surgical procedures. Saline haemodilution techniques used to measure blood volume require validation against more recently developed nuclear medicine techniques using statistical methods other than regression analysis. Until validated, they should be used with caution for estimating blood volume in adult patients currently undergoing cardiac surgical procedures. If a formula using height, weight and sex is used to estimate blood volume in the context of cardiac surgery, then it must be derived using a much more comprehensive sample of the population to which it is applied than has occurred to date. In particular, it should include broader distributions of height, weight and the presence or absence and type of significant valvular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a new homogenization algorithm validation methodology, and its use to assess the skill of eight different algorithms, when applied to synthetic daily temperature time series. These algorithms were ACMANT, Climatol (in both daily and monthly configurations), DAP, HOM, MAC‐D, MASH and SpliDHOM. Algorithms were tested on benchmark data replicating daily temperature variability in four regions in North America: Wyoming, the South East, the North East and the South West. These benchmarks contained plausible spatial and temporal correlation, differing station densities and both abrupt and gradual inhomogeneities. Algorithm ability was assessed both according to detection of inhomogeneities and correction of their effects, investigating bias, root‐mean‐square error (RMSE), linear trend recovery, station extremes and variability recovery. Inhomogeneities with a magnitude greater than 1°C were those most commonly detected with smaller inhomogeneities, and those that were not constant over time, proving harder to identify. Regional RMSE was always reduced by all algorithms and regional bias was reduced in over half of the region/scenario pairs. Trend recovery was variable, but the correct sign of regional trends was retained by all algorithms. Areas for future algorithm improvement include working with autocorrelated data and correcting moments higher than the mean. The data are available from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/benchmarks and the validation code from https://github.com/RachelKillick/Daily%5fbenchmarks allowing the extension of this work and its application to new algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]