MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High‐dose calcium reduces early‐onset hyperkalemia in extremely preterm neonates

2012· article· en· W1615457453 on OpenAlexaff
Masahiro Enomoto, Hirotaka Minami, T Takano, Yoshinori Katayama, Yong Kye Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperkalemiaMedicineCalciumHypoglycemiaPotassiumGestationAnesthesiaInternal medicinePregnancyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early-onset hyperkalemia often occurs in extremely preterm infants during a few days after birth. While there are several treatments for hyperkalemia, calcium infusion to reduce plasma potassium concentrations remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a high dosage of calcium reduces early-onset hyperkalemia. METHODS: Extremely low-birthweight neonates born at 22-25 weeks' gestation were enrolled. We analyzed data using multivariate regression analysis and performed a retrospective cohort study with patients divided into two groups according to the dosage of calcium in their initial infusion. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were eligible. Early-onset hyperkalemia was observed in 27 patients. The dosage of calcium gluconate during 24 h after birth was the only independent factor affecting early-onset hyperkalemia. The maximum plasma potassium concentration during 72 h after birth was negatively correlated with the dosage of calcium. High-dose calcium reduced occurrences of hyperkalemia and hypoglycemia caused by insulin infusion given for treatment of hyperkalemia, without increasing the risk of any other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Infusion of calcium gluconate may reduce early-onset hyperkalemia in a dose-dependent manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics InternationalSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207