Hypophosphatemia and Outcomes in ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Hypophosphatemia is reported in up to 5% of hospitalized patients and ranges from 20% to 80% in critically ill patients. The consequences of hypophosphatemia for critically ill patients remain controversial. We evaluated the effect of hypophosphatemia on mortality and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Reviews and Trials), and PubMed were searched for articles in English. The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcome was length of stay. The quality of evidence was graded using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Our search yielded 828 articles and ultimately included 12 studies with 7626 participants in the analysis. Hypophosphatemia was associated with increased hospital length of stay (2.19 days [95% CI, 1.74-2.64]) and ICU length of stay (2.22 days [95% CI, 1.00-3.44]) but not mortality (risk ratio: 1.13 [95% CI, 0.98-1.31]; P = .09). Conclusions: Hypophosphatemia in ICU was associated with increased hospital and ICU length of stay but not all-cause mortality. Hypophosphatemia appears to be a marker of disease severity. Limited number of available studies and varied study designs did not allow for the ascertainment of the effect of severe hypophosphatemia on patient mortality.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it