Choice of maintenance intravenous fluids among paediatric residents in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent literature and guidelines support routine use of isotonic intravenous (IV) fluids for maintenance therapy in hospitalized infants and children. Current prescribing practices are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To elicit paediatric residents' choice of maintenance IV fluids, particularly with regard to tonicity, in a variety of clinical scenarios and patient ages. We hypothesized that residents would choose isotonic fluids in most cases, but there would be substantially more variability in fluid choice in the neonatal age group. METHODS: An Internet-based survey was e-mailed to trainees in the 17 paediatric residency programs across Canada, via the Canadian Paediatric Program Directors. The survey instrument included questions related to training, followed by a series of questions eliciting choice of IV fluid in a variety of clinical situations. RESULTS: A total of 147 survey responses were submitted (22% response rate). Isotonic solutions were selected by >75% across all clinical scenarios involving infants and children. Very hypotonic fluids were seldom chosen. There was more variability in fluid choice in neonates, with evidence of significant differences in fluid tonicity based on senior versus junior resident status and geographical location. CONCLUSIONS: Results imply a predominance of isotonic fluid use in infants and children, suggesting that clinical practice has changed in response to risk of hyponatremia with hypotonic IV fluids. As hypothesized, there was more variability with respect to choice of maintenance fluids in neonates. This likely reflects a paucity of guidance in an age group with unique physiologic factors affecting fluid and electrolyte status.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".