Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recently published review on fluid management in pre-eclampsia1 highlights the lack of evidence to support clinical decision making in this area. It is important to appreciate that many of these knowledge gaps are not specific to preeclampsia, but common to all critically ill patients, despite ongoing research. Fluid management in the critically ill has been a constant source of debate, for example keeping patients “wet” versus “dry”, crystalloids versus colloids, pulmonary artery (PA) catheter, or not. The goal directed therapy approach proposes fluid resuscitation aimed at acute physiological goals. However, over the past decade the adverse effects of this aggressive fluid approach has become evident. Although pulmonary edema is a concern, this is usually easily managed with diuretics and transient noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. Excess fluid may also cause edema of other organs and flood the peritoneal cavity, resulting in reduced organ perfusion and even aggravating renal dysfunction and increasing mortality.2,3 Fortunately, there has been progress in some of these areas. The PA line issue seems to have been put to rest with several studies showing a lack of benefit of this technology for routine use.4 Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines when use of PA catheters is appropriate, and no acceptable alternatives for the assessment of fluid status in the critically ill. The crystalloid–colloid debate has been addressed by several large studies outside of pregnancy. The SAFE study5 and the CRISTAL study6 have shown no difference in outcome using crystalloid versus colloid in large groups of intensive care unit patients. A signal toward improved outcome with albumin in patients with sepsis is being addressed by a large Italian study (ALBIOS). Dopamine no longer has a role in the management of renal dysfunction in the critically ill – although this drug has diuretic properties and glomerular filtration rate improves in proportion to the increase in cardiac output, there is no protective effect on renal function.7 Similar conclusions have been reached in pre-eclamptic women.8
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".