Fluid Accumulation in Critically Ill Children*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of fluid accumulation in critically ill children and evaluate the association between the degree, timing, duration, and rate of fluid accumulation and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: PICUs in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All children admitted to PICU in Alberta, Canada, between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,017 patients were included. Fluid overload % increased from median (interquartile range) 1.58% (0.23-3.56%; n = 1,017) on day 1 to 16.42% (7.53-27.34%; n = 111) on day 10 among those remaining in PICU. The proportion of patients (95% CI) with peak fluid overload % greater than 10% and greater than 20% was 32.7% (29.8-35.7%) and 9.1% (7.4-11.1%), respectively. Thirty-two children died (3.1%) in PICU. Peak fluid overload % was associated with greater PICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; p = 0.001). Greater peak fluid overload % was associated with Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; p = 0.001), length of mechanical ventilation (B coefficient, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.77; p < 0.001), and length of PICU stay (B coefficient, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.46-0.58; p < 0.001). The rate of fluid accumulation was associated with PICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.31; p = 0.04), Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30; p = 0.02), length of mechanical ventilation (B coefficient, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.005), and length of PICU stay (B coefficient, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.11-0.66; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Fluid accumulation occurs commonly during PICU course and is associated with considerable mortality and morbidity. These findings highlight the need for the development and evaluation of interventional strategies to mitigate the potential harm associated with fluid accumulation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".