ABSTRACT 257
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is performed in infants with devices that has not been specifically designed for them. Aims: To study the impact of CRRT technical aspects on the management of CRRT in infants, we compared survival rate and CRRT characteristics of children weighing ≤10 kg to older children. Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive epidemiological study. All children who underwent CRRT between January 1998 and December 2008, admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of Ste-Justine hospital were included and data were collected from charts. This study was approved by the local REB. Results: We reviewed records of 55 patients consecutively: wt ≤10kg, n=16 and wt >10kg, n=39. Patients were aged 0.5 ± 0.4 vs 10.3 ± 5.5 years with a PIM 2 score at PICU admission of 21.3%±21.0 vs 14.3%±13.1 respectively. In both groups, the first reason to start CRRT was fluid overload: 100% and 85%, respectively. Survival rate between groups (40% vs 36%; p 0.78), mean length of stay in PICU in days (29.3 ± 27.0 vs 22.2 ± 18.8; p 0.60), mean number of episodes of CRRT per patients (3.8 ± 3,9 vs 4.5 ± 3,1; p 0.19) and mean duration of CRRT episodes in hours (34.9 ± 17.4 vs 29.3 ± 18.3; p 0.2) were similar. Conclusions: No differences between survival rate and CRRT characteristics were observed between children ≤10kg and >10kg. This suggests that technical aspect is not a major issue in infants treated with CRRT, in our experience.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.630 | 0.501 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".