MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418750885 · doi:10.1097/mpg.0000000000001294

Sodium Intake Requirements for Preterm Neonates

2016· review· en· W2418750885 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrianne R. Bischoff, Christopher Tomlinson, Jaques Belik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHyponatremiaSodiumGestational ageIntensive care medicineUrinary systemHypernatremiaPediatricsPhysiologyPregnancyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely accepted that sodium is an essential nutritional electrolyte and its deficiency is associated with neurological sequelae and poor growth. The provision of an adequate sodium intake to preterm neonates is hampered by the technical difficulty in clinically assessing total body sodium content. As addressed in this review, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of hyponatremia early in life, but there is no evidence that it should deviate from the widely accepted normative data for adult subjects. A low urinary sodium content is accepted by many as reflecting total body sodium deficiency, yet spot urinary sodium measurements are of questionable clinical value. The hormonal regulation of sodium homeostasis is here reviewed and the mechanism accounting for sodium deficiency-induced growth impairment in preterm infants addressed. Lastly, we provide evidence-based gestational and postnatal age-dependent recommendations for the provision of adequate sodium intake to preterm neonates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207