MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056754104 · doi:10.1159/000142930

New Insights on Intravenous Fluids, Diuretics and Acute Kidney Injury

2008· review· en· W2056754104 on OpenAlexaff
Derek R. Townsend, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueNephron Clinical Practice · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAcute kidney injuryDiureticResuscitationIntravascular volume statusVolume overloadContext (archaeology)Internal medicineAnesthesiaHeart failureHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is commonly and increasingly encountered in patients with critical illness. Fluid therapy is the cornerstone for the prevention and management of critically ill patients with AKI. New data have emerged that have raised concern that specific types of fluid (i.e. hydroxyethylstarch) may either contribute to or exacerbate AKI. Additional data have accumulated to indicate that the unnecessary accumulation of fluid and volume overload can negatively impact clinical outcomes. This finding may be further compounded in patients with oliguric AKI where solute and free water elimination are impaired. Diuretic therapy in AKI remains controversial. However, diuretic use is common, despite a paucity of evidence to show improved clinical outcomes. There are few therapeutic interventions proven to impact the clinical course and outcome of critically ill patients with established AKI. Current management strategies center largely on supportive care, with rapid resuscitation, removal of the stimulus contributing to AKI, judicious avoidance of complications, and allowing time for recovery. In this review, we explore recent insights on intravenous fluid therapy, volume overload, and diuretic therapy in the context of the critically ill patients with AKI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.380 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephron Clinical PracticeSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207