MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968714079 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e3181e4d732

Fluid Creep: The Pendulum Hasnʼt Swung Back Yet!

2010· article· en· W1968714079 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Cartotto, Amy Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationAnesthesiaIncidence (geometry)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid creep was recognized nearly a decade ago. Although many burn centers are now aware of fluid creep, it is not clear whether any reversal of this phenomenon has occurred. The purpose of this study was to examine whether we have made any headway in reversing fluid creep at our facility. This is a retrospective review of the first 48 hours of fluid resuscitation using the Parkland formula among patients with >/=15% TBSA burns admitted to our adult regional burn centre (BC) between January 1, 2000, and May 30, 2008. All values are reported as the mean +/- SD. There were 196 consecutive resuscitations available for analysis. Group characteristics were age 46 +/- 18 years, burn size 31% +/- 15% (range 15-81%), and full-thickness burn size 13% +/- 16%, with a 26% incidence of inhalation injury. The delay between injury and BC admission was 4.5 +/- 2.6 hours. During this time, a total crystalloid volume of 1.5 +/- 1.0 ml/kg/%burn, or nearly 40% of the recommended 24-hour Parkland volume, was administered. Total crystalloids given in the first 24 hours (prior to and within the BC) were 6.3 +/- 2.9 ml/kg/%TBSA, with 76% of all resuscitations receiving >4.3 ml/kg/%burn (the upper limit predicted by Baxter). Hourly urine output (UO) in the first 24 hours postburn was 1.2 +/- 0.7 ml/kg/h. There were minimal insignificant downward trends in the volume of resuscitation fluids and the mean hourly UO of the 194 cases over the 8-year period of the study. In contrast, use of colloids (5% albumin) and formal measurement of intraabdominal pressures increased during the same time period. Despite awareness of fluid creep, we have not substantially reversed this phenomenon, primarily because of failure to titrate down fluid infusion rates and by accepting higher than recommended UO. Excessive pre-BC fluid also continues to be a contributing factor.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations136
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207