MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149035905 · doi:10.1177/0009922807303041

Hypotonic Versus Isotonic Maintenance Intravenous Fluid Therapy in Hospitalized Children: A Systematic Review

2007· review· en· W2149035905 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyponatremiaIsotonicTonicityIntravenous fluidIsotonic SolutionsObservational studyIntensive care medicinePediatricsAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review of studies comparing hypotonic versus isotonic intravenous maintenance fluids in hospitalized children was conducted to determine whether hypotonic solutions increase the risk of acute hyponatremia. Studies were identified from electronic databases and hand-searched reference lists. A total of 283 abstracts were reviewed, 55 full-text articles were retrieved, and 3 studies were included. All studies were observational and were overall inconclusive. All authors cautioned against the routine use of hypotonic maintenance fluids, but hypotonic fluid administration did not always explain the development of acute hyponatremia. Further evidence is required as to the appropriate maintenance solution for hospitalized children.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.335 · 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