MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W13630841

Do intra-operative fluids influence the need for post-operative cardiotropic support after a PDA ligation?

2011· article· en· W13630841 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Lemyre, Ling Liu, Gregory P. Moore, Sarah Lawrence, Nicholas Barrowman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLigationLogistic regressionProspective cohort studyPopulationDuctus arteriosusCohortCohort studyRetrospective cohort studyAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of intra-operative intravenous fluids on post-operative hemodynamic stability. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 98 preterm infants who underwent a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) ligation in one NICU between 2001 and 2007. The primary outcome was the need for cardiotropic support within 24 hrs of ligation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven infants (28%) required post-operative cardiotropic support. The amount of intra-operative fluids varied between 0 and 50.4 mL/kg (median: 10.2 mL/kg). No intra-operative fluid was recorded in 26 patients. Fluids were not associated with the need for post-operative cardiotropic support (P=0.10). Using a multivariate logistic regression model, age at ligation, weight at ligation and pre-operative FiO2 were significant predictors of post-operative cardiotropic support. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative fluids do not appear to be associated with the need for post-operative cardiotropic support. A prospective cohort study may help identify modifiable risk factors and improve outcomes in this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207