MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769639291 · doi:10.1109/rbme.2017.2776041

Engineering Approaches to Assessing Hydration Status

2017· review· en· W2769639291 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Garrett, Nyssa Rae, Jared R. Fletcher, Sasha Zarnke, Sarah Thorson, David B. Hogan, Elise Fear

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrine specific gravityDehydrationIntensive care medicineMedicineFluid intakeRisk analysis (engineering)UrineChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dehydration is a common condition characterized by a decrease in total body water. Acute dehydration can cause physical and cognitive impairment, heat stroke and exhaustion, and, if severe and uncorrected, even death. The health effects of chronic mild dehydration are less well studied with urolithiasis (kidney stones) the only condition consistently associated with it. Aside from infants and those with particular medical conditions, athletes, military personnel, manual workers, and older adults are at particular risk of dehydration due to their physical activity, environmental exposure, and/or challenges in maintaining fluid homeostasis. This review describes the different approaches that have been explored for hydration assessment in adults. These include clinical indicators perceived by the patient or detected by a practitioner and routine laboratory analyses of blood and urine. These techniques have variable accuracy and practicality outside of controlled environments, creating a need for simple, portable, and rapid hydration monitoring devices. We review the wide array of devices proposed for hydration assessment based on optical, electromagnetic, chemical, and acoustical properties of tissue and bodily fluids. However, none of these approaches has yet emerged as a reliable indicator in diverse populations across various settings, motivating efforts to develop new methods of hydration assessment.

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)0.003
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.464
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.034 · 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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207