MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006334133 · doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-149

Comparison of clinical and biochemical markers of dehydration with the clinical dehydration scale in children: a case comparison trial

2014· article· en· W2006334133 on OpenAlexafffund
Ron K Tam, Hubert Wong, Amy C. Plint, Nathalie Lepage, Guido Filler

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityCredit Valley HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDehydrationClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The clinical dehydration scale (CDS) is a quick, easy-to-use tool with 4 clinical items and a score of 1-8 that serves to classify dehydration in children with gastroenteritis as no, some or moderate/severe dehydration. Studies validating the CDS (Friedman JN) with a comparison group remain elusive. We hypothesized that the CDS correlates with a wide spectrum of established markers of dehydration, making it an appropriate and easy-to-use clinical tool. METHODS: This study was designed as a prospective double-cohort trial in a single tertiary care center. Children with diarrhea and vomiting, who clinically required intravenous fluids for rehydration, were compared with minor trauma patients who required intravenous needling for conscious sedation. We compared the CDS with clinical and urinary markers (urinary electrolytes, proteins, ratios and fractional excretions) for dehydration in both groups using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: We enrolled 73 children (male = 36) in the dehydration group and 143 (male = 105) in the comparison group. Median age was 32 months (range 3-214) in the dehydration and 96 months (range 2.6-214 months, p < 0.0001) in the trauma group. Median CDS was 3 (range 0-8) within the dehydration group and 0 in the comparison group (p < 0.0001). The following parameters were statistically significant (p < 0.05) between the comparison group and the dehydrated group: difference in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, urine sodium/potassium ratio, urine sodium, fractional sodium excretion, serum bicarbonate, and creatinine measurements. The best markers for dehydration were urine Na and serum bicarbonate (ROC AUC = 0.798 and 0.821, respectively). CDS was most closely correlated with serum bicarbonate (Pearson r = -0.3696, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although serum bicarbonate is not the gold standard for dehydration, this study provides further evidence for the usefulness of the CDS as a dehydration marker in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00462527) on April 18, 2007.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207