Review: capillary refill time, abnormal skin turgor, and abnormal respiratory pattern are useful signs for detecting dehydration in children
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steiner MJ, DeWalt DA, Byerley JS. Is this child dehydrated? JAMA 2004;291:2746–54.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the accuracy of signs, symptoms, and laboratory tests for detecting dehydration in children? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline (1966 to April 2003), Cochrane Library , reference lists, and experts in the field. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: studies in any language that compared signs, symptoms, and laboratory values with a recognised gold standard for diagnosing dehydration (rehydration weight minus acute weight divided by rehydration weight) in children (0–18 y). Study quality was ranked from highest (level 1 = independent, blind comparison of test with a valid gold standard) to lowest (level 5 = non-independent comparison of test with an uncertain standard of validity, which may incorporate the test result into the gold standard). ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Outcomes: sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.aulast%253DSteiner%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D291%26rft.issue%253D22%26rft.spage%253D2746%26rft.epage%253D2754%26rft.atitle%253DIs%2BThis%2BChild%2BDehydrated%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.291.22.2746%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15187057%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.291.22.2746&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15187057&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F2%2F57.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221862300030&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it