Medical and Nursing Care of the Child on Mechanical Circulatory Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the medical and nursing care of children receiving mechanical circulatory support as part of the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Society/Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Joint Statement on Mechanical Circulatory Support. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION/DATA SYNTHESIS: This is a general review of current issues of medical and nursing care of children on mechanical circulatory support. It consists of knowledge gained from practical experience combined with supporting evidence and/or discussion of controversies for which evidence exists or is inconclusive. The scope of this review includes assessment and monitoring, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal and fluid management, as well as infection prevention and treatment, neurological, and nutritional considerations. Physical and psychological care is discussed, as well as ethical and practical issues regarding termination of support. CONCLUSIONS: There are unique aspects to the medical and nursing care of a patient requiring mechanical circulatory support. Preserving the possibility for cardiac recovery when possible and preventing damage to noncardiac organs are essential to maximizing the probability that patients will have quality survival following support with a mechanical circulatory support device.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".