Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (PCRRT) expert committee recommendation on prescribing prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT) in critically ill children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapies (PIRRT) have emerged as cost-effective alternatives to conventional CRRT and their use in the pediatric population has started to become more prominent. However, there is a lack of consensus guidelines on the use of PIRRT in pediatric patients in an intensive care setting. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar in conjunction with medical librarians from both India and the Cleveland Clinic hospital system to find relevant articles. The Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy workgroup analyzed all articles for relevancy, proposed recommendations, and graded each recommendation for their strength of evidence. RESULTS: Of the 60 studies eligible for review, the workgroup considered data from 37 studies to formulate guidelines for the use of PIRRT in children. The guidelines focused on the definition, indications, machines, and prescription of PIRRT. CONCLUSION: Although the literature on the use of PIRRT in children is limited, the current studies give credence to their benefits and these expert recommendations are a valuable first step in the continued study of PIRRT in the pediatric 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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".