Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been interest in rapid rehydration for gastroenteritis to reduce hospital stay. A Canadian randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared intravenous (IV) rehydration with normal saline over 1 h given rapidly (60 mL/kg) or at the standard rate (20 mL/kg).1 They found no difference in the proportion of children rehydrated at 2 h, nor in the proportion needing prolonged treatment, while the median time to discharge was actually significantly longer (6.3 vs. 5 h) for the rapid group.1 A Melbourne RCT of 254 infants with at least moderate dehydration (2.7% of the 9331 children seen with gastroenteritis) compared rapid nasogastric (NG) rehydration (100 mL/kg over 4 h) with standard NG rehydration over 24 h.2 The primary failure rates were similar (11.8% rapid, 9.2% standard), and although rapid rehydration avoided hospitalisation for just over half the infants, 22.7% failed discharge from the emergency department 4 h after rapid rehydration and another 7.6% were readmitted within 24 h.2 The vast majority of children with gastroenteritis will drink and can be rehydrated orally (over 97% in the Melbourne study). For the small number of children who require IV or NG rehydration, there is little to recommend rapid rehydration compared with a more sedate approach. Reviewer: David Isaacs, david.isaacs@health.nsw.gov.au
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 | 0.016 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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".