...
【24h】

Letter to the Editor

机译:给编辑的信

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Mean hemoglobin results presented in Table 1 for all treatment groups are approximately half the lower limit of the normal range for rats that are approximately 15 weeks old (Awney et al., 2010). However, total erythrocyte counts and PCV are well within (or above) published normal ranges, which strongly suggest an analytical error for hemoglobin since all three tests measure the same thing - circulating erythrocyte mass. The low hemoglobin concentrations resulted in extraordinarily low values for mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) that are most likely incompatible with erythrocyte function. If these animals had hemoglobin results that were truly in the 7-8 g dr1 range, they would be extremely anemic, their grave condition would be apparent clinically and they would be inappropriate subjects for research. Such was not reported in the paper, so an analytical error is the most likely explanation.
机译:所有治疗组的表1中提出的平均血红蛋白结果大约是大约15周龄的正常范围的下限的一半(Awney等,2010)。 然而,总红细胞计数和PCV在公开的正常范围内很好,这强烈表明了血红蛋白的分析误差,因为所有三种测试测量相同的东西 - 循环红细胞质量。 低血红蛋白浓度导致平均碎石血红蛋白(MCH)的异常低值,平均血红蛋白浓度(MCHC)最可能与红细胞功能不相容。 如果这些动物有7-8克DR1的血红蛋白结果,他们将是非常贫血的,他们的严重状况将在临床上显而易见,并且他们将是不恰当的研究主题。 本文未报告此类,因此分析错误是最可能的解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号