Determination of the critical O2 delivery from experimental data: Sensitivity to error

R. W. Samsel, P. T. Schumacker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

85 Scopus citations

Abstract

Normally, metabolic need determines tissue O2 consumption (V̇O2). In states of reduced supply, V̇O2 declines sharply below a critical level of O2 delivery (Q̇O2 = blood flow x arterial O2 content). Although several investigators have measured a critical O2 delivery in whole animals or in isolated tissues, there is no general agreement over how to determine the critical point from a collection of real data. In this study, we compare three algorithms for finding the critical O2 delivery from a set of experimental data. We also present a technique for estimating the effect of experimental error on the precision of these algorithms. Using 16 data sets collected in normal dogs, we compare single-line, dual-line, and polynomial regression algorithms for identifying the critical O2 delivery. The dual-line and polynomial regression techniques fit the data better (mean residual square deviation 0.024 and 0.031, respectively) than the single-regression line approach (0.110). To investigate the influence of experimental error on the derived critical Q̇O2, we used a Monte Carlo technique, repeatedly perturbing the experimental data to simulate experimental error. We then calculated the variance of the critical Q̇O2 frequency distribution obtained when the three algorithms were applied to the perturbed data. By this analysis, the dual-line regression technique was less sensitive to experimental error than the polynomial technique.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2074-2082
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of applied physiology
Volume64
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1988

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Physiology (medical)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Determination of the critical O<sub>2</sub> delivery from experimental data: Sensitivity to error'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this