A randomized controlled trial of isotonic versus hypotonic maintenance intravenous fluids in hospitalized children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isotonic saline has been proposed as a safer alternative to traditional hypotonic solutions for intravenous (IV) maintenance fluids to prevent hyponatremia. However, the optimal tonicity of maintenance intravenous fluids in hospitalized children has not been determined. The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the rates of change in serum sodium ([Na]) for patients administered either hypotonic or isotonic IV fluids for maintenance needs. METHODS: This was a masked controlled trial. Randomization was stratified by admission type: medical patients and post-operative surgical patients, aged 3 months to 18 years, who required IV fluids for at least 8 hours. Patients were randomized to receive either 0.45% or 0.9% saline in 5.0% dextrose. Treating physicians used the study fluid for maintenance; infusion rate and the use of additional fluids were left to their discretion. RESULTS: Sixteen children were randomized to 0.9% saline and 21 to 0.45% saline. Baseline characteristics, duration (average of 12 hours) and rate of study fluid infusion, and the volume of additional isotonic fluids given were similar for the two groups. [Na] increased significantly in the 0.9% group (+0.20 mmol/L/h [IQR +0.03, +0.4]; P = 0.02) and increased, but not significantly, in the 0.45% group (+0.08 mmol/L/h [IQR -0.15, +0.16]; P = 0.07). The rate of change and absolute change in serum [Na] did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: When administered at the appropriate maintenance rate and accompanied by adequate volume expansion with isotonic fluids, 0.45% saline did not result in a drop in serum sodium during the first 12 hours of fluid therapy in children without severe baseline hyponatremia. Confirmation in a larger study is strongly recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00457873 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".