Association between fluid balance and survival in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the consequences of chronic fluid retention are well known, those of iatrogenic fluid retention that occurs during critical illness have not been fully determined. Therefore, we investigated the association between fluid balance and survival in a cohort of almost 16,000 individuals who survived an intensive care unit (ICU) stay in a large, urban, tertiary medical centre. DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of fluid balance at ICU discharge and 90-day post-ICU survival. MEASUREMENTS: Associations between fluid balance during the ICU stay, determined from the electronic bedside record, and survival were tested using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for severity of critical illness. RESULTS: There were 1827 deaths in the first 90 days after ICU discharge. Compared with the lowest quartile of discharge fluid balance [median (interquartile range) -1.5 (-3.1, -0.7) L], the highest quartile [7.6 (5.7, 10.8) L] was associated with a 35% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.61)] higher adjusted risk of death. Fluid balance was not associated with outcome amongst individuals without congestive heart failure or renal dysfunction. Amongst patients with either comorbidity, however, fluid balance was strongly associated with outcome, with the highest quartile having a 55% (95% CI 1.24-1.95) higher adjusted risk of death than the lowest quartile. Isotonic fluid balance, defined as the difference between intravenous isotonic fluid administration and urine output, was similarly associated with 90-day outcomes. CONCLUSION: Positive fluid balance at the time of ICU discharge is associated with increased risk of death, after adjusting for markers of illness severity and chronic medical conditions, particularly in patients with underlying heart or kidney disease. Restoration of euvolaemia prior to discharge may improve survival after acute illness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".