Management Of Pediatric Diabetic Ketoacidosis: Does Aggressive Fluid Resuscitation Actually Result In Cerebral Edema? The Case Of A 6-Year-Old With Aggressive Fluid Resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The role of fluid resuscitation in the causation of cerebral edema has been controversial and the subject of several studies over the decades. The aim of this case report is to challenge the perception that aggressive fluid resuscitation in pediatric diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) causes cerebral edema. Methods: We describe the case of a 6-year-old with DKA who made an excellent recovery with no immediate or long-term sequelae, despite being given large amounts of appropriate fluids for resuscitation. Additional literature review was conducted to explore the link between DKA and fluid resuscitation. Results: Many Canadian and international experts recommend initial fluid resuscitation with intravenous normal saline at 10 to 20 mL/kg within the first 1 to 2 hours to a maximum of 30 mL/kg only if shock is suspected. Our patient required in excess of 30 mL/kg as recommended and was transferred to a regional pediatric intensive care unit, where the aggressive volume expansion was continued, and made an excellent recovery. Conclusion: The apprehension towards a more liberal resuscitation is due to the feared theoretical risk, which has not been borne by the available evidence. Despite this absence of evidence, several international recommendations have remained conservative in their approach. A more aggressive approach in certain situations may be appropriate as recommended by the new International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines. Abbreviations: CT = computed tomography; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; IV = intravenous; NS = normal saline; PICU = pediatric intensive care unit
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".