Calcium supplementation in CVVH using regional citrate anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Calcium supplementation is one of the most important factors in maintaining the safety and efficacy of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). The aims of this study were to assess the determinants of calcium requirements in RCA-CVVH and to simplify the calcium supplementation approach. METHODS: Our study consisted of two parts. The first part was a discovery phase to determine the key factors of calcium supplementation. Twenty critically ill patients who required RCA-CVVH were enrolled in this part. Systemic citrate, total calcium, protein-bound calcium, and ionized calcium concentrations were serially measured using the traditional RCA protocol. A two-phase calcium supplementation protocol was then proposed, and algorithms were developed for calcium supplementation. The second part of the study was the validation phase. Another 97 critically ill patients were enrolled and were treated with RCA-CVVH using the new version of the calcium supplementation protocol. FINDINGS: The loss of calcium flux in the extracorporeal circuit and the increase in citrate-calcium complexes in vivo were the main determinants of the required calcium supplementation. In the CVVH mode, the rate of calcium infusion had to be reduced after systemic citrate level reached a steady state. With the aid of mathematical models, systemic calcium levels could be stably maintained in the normal range, and the frequencies of calcium monitoring were reduced. DISCUSSION: Calcium supplementation during RCA-CVVH undergoes two phases. We propose mathematical models to quantify the need for calcium supplementation, which enable individualization of the RCA prescription and simplify the management of RCA in the CVVH mode.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".