Criteria for Clinically Relevant Bleeding in Critically Ill Children: An International Survey*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bleeding, a feared complication of critical illness, is frequent in critically ill children. However, the concept of clinically relevant bleeding is ill-defined in this population. There are many established diagnostic criteria for bleeding, but only one estimates bleeding in critically ill adults, and none exist for critically ill children. Our objective was to identify the factors that influence pediatric intensivists' perception of clinically relevant bleeding. DESIGN: Self-administered, web-based survey with 9-point Likert scales, to qualify the clinical significance of 103 bleeding characteristics in critically ill children. SETTING: Online survey. SUBJECTS: Pediatric critical care physicians and nurse practitioners. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 40%, with 225 respondents from 16 countries. Characteristics most frequently identified as clinically relevant were bleeding in critical locations (e.g., pericardium, pleural space, CNS, and lungs); requiring interventions; leading to physiologic repercussions, including organ failure; and of prolonged duration. Quantifiable bleeding greater than 5 mL/kg/hr for more than 1 hour was frequently considered clinically relevant. Respondents identified the following characteristics as clinically irrelevant: dressings required to be changed no less frequently than every 6 hours, streaks of blood in gastric tubes, streaks of blood in endotracheal tubes or blood in endotracheal tubes only during suctioning, lightly blood-tinged urine, quantifiable bleeding less than 1 mL/kg/hr, and noncoalescing petechiae. Perception of the clinical relevance of bleeding was not associated with the respondent's geographical location of clinical practice or years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey provides a better understanding of the factors that influence the pediatric intensivists' assessment of the clinical relevance of bleeding in critically ill children. It provides the foundation for the development of a validated, diagnostic definition of clinically relevant bleeding in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".