Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine electrolyte-free water requirements that should be considered when administering maintenance fluids in a critically ill child. We examine some of the difficulties in estimating these requirements, and discuss the controversies with respect to the traditional recommendations. SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-2007), Embase (1980-2007), and the Cochrane Library, using the terms fluid therapy, hypotonic, isotonic solution, and synonyms or related terms. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS: The ideal maintenance solution and fluid regimen remains a topic of heated debate in pediatrics. The traditional recommendations for maintenance fluids are increasingly criticized as they do not consistently apply in acute illness, where energy expenditure and electrolyte requirements deviate significantly from the original estimates. A physiologically based framework for prescribing maintenance fluids is presented, with the objective of maintaining tonicity balance, and infusing the minimum volume of maintenance fluid required to maintain hemodynamics. Indications for isotonic and hypotonic solutions are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance fluid prescriptions should be individualized. No single intravenous solution is ideal for every child during all phases of illness, but there is evidence to suggest that the safest empirical choice is an isotonic solution. Hypotonic solutions should only be considered if the goal is to achieve a positive free-water balance. Critically ill children may require a reduction by as much as 40-50% of the currently recommended maintenance volumes. All patients receiving intravenous fluids should be monitored closely with daily weights, fluid balances, biochemical and clinical parameters in order to best guide this therapy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".