Lessons Learned from a Small Pediatric Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has become a pillar of care in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) over the past few decades. Quality indicators (QIs) have been evaluated that reflect safe and accountable CRRT. However, there is a paucity of data on outcomes and QIs in smaller-volume CRRT programming. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficiencies, effectiveness, and outcomes of a small-volume CRRT program. Eighty-two patients received CRRT over a 13-year period, and 79% survived to discharge. Sepsis or nonseptic shock (n = 11 (22%) versus n = 6 (50%); p value = 0.004) and time to CRRT initiation after PICU admission (1.1 versus 5.0 days; p value = 0.005) were independent predictors for mortality. The program also had positive outcomes for QIs related to CRRT efficiency and time of initiation, dosing delivery, and rate of adverse events. This study is important as it illustrates the opportunity that smaller centers have to initiate CRRT programming and provide safe and effective care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".