The phrase "arm saturation" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to medical, physiological, or fitness discussions, often referring to the level of blood flow or muscle engagement in the arms.
Example: "During the workout, I felt a significant increase in arm saturation, indicating that my muscles were fully engaged."
Alternatives: "arm blood flow" or "muscle engagement in arms".
The main concentration-dependent magnetic parameters, including mass-specific magnetic susceptibility, anhysteretic remanent magnetization (ARM), and saturation isothermal remanent magnetization (SIRM), were selected to obtain normalized remanences.
For instance, a reading of 90% corresponded to actual levels of 87% in the low-oxygen (85% to 89%) saturation arm, and 93% in the high-oxygen saturation arm (91%to95%5%) of the trial (SUPPORT 2010).
As this non-randomized trial progresses, it is evident that the sickest infants will comprise a disproportionate number of the high-oxygen saturation arm, and the healthier infants will comprise a disproportionate number of the low-oxygen saturation arm.
Had masking not been used, physicians may have tended to increase the dose of oxygen for infants in the low-oxygen saturation arm, with the effect of making infants' oxygen saturation levels similar (Cortés-Puch et al. 2016).
However, a prospective [End Page 89] analysis revealed that infants in the low-oxygen saturation arm were subject to an increased risk of death, while survivors experienced reduced rates of severe retinopathy (SUPPORT 2010).
Faced with an infant with [End Page 100] a substantial chance of mortality, it is likely that the clinician will assign this infant to the high-oxygen saturation arm of the trial to maximize her chances of survival.
Finally, a study by Cortés-Puch and colleagues found that the low target oxygen saturation arm in the SUPPORT trial (85% to 89%) was not in fact consistent with usual care (Cortés-Puch et al. 2016).
Conversely, faced with an infant with a relatively good prognosis, it is likely that the clinician will assign her to the low-oxygen saturation arm, in an effort to reduce the risk of retinopathy.
In this case, the risks and benefits of receiving the low-oxygen saturation arm are manifestly different from the risks and benefits of receiving high-oxygen saturation as over seven decades of preliminary data portend (albeit, evidence not strong enough to change clinical practice).
Moreover, regardless of whether one agrees with our contention that the bifurcation of a usual care range no longer constitutes usual care, Cortés-Puch and colleagues make it clear that the low-oxygen saturation arm was not, in fact, routine medical practice.
