MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098152994 · doi:10.1177/0009922809336670

Clinical and Laboratory Assessment of Dehydration Severity in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis

2009· article· en· W2098152994 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia C. Parkin, Colin Macarthur, Amina Khambalia, Ran D. Goldman, Jeremy Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute gastroenteritisConfidence intervalDehydrationEmergency departmentInternal medicineClinical PracticePediatricsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and laboratory assessment of dehydration severity in children, 1 to 36 months, with acute gastroenteritis. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical and laboratory measures and weight change following rehydration were collected for enrolled children. SETTING: Pediatric emergency department. RESULTS: Likelihood ratio (LR+) and 95% confidence interval (CI): for a clinical score of 0, the LR+ was 2.2 (95% CI = 0.9-5.3); for a clinical score of 1 to 4, the LR+ was 1.3 (95% CI = 0.90-1.74); for a clinical score of 5 to 8, the LR+ was 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2-12.8); for a venous pH <7.32, the LR+ was 7.2 (95% CI = 2.4-21.9); and for serum bicarbonate <18 mmol/L, the LR+ was 11.6 (95% CI = 3.5-38.0). CONCLUSION: Clinicians may find it useful to incorporate the Clinical Dehydration Scale and laboratory measures into clinical decision-making algorithms to assess dehydration severity in children with acute gastroenteritis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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