Hematologic Dysfunction Criteria in Critically Ill Children: The PODIUM Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Studies of organ dysfunction in children are limited by a lack of consensus around organ dysfunction criteria. OBJECTIVES: To derive evidence-informed, consensus-based criteria for hematologic dysfunction in critically ill children. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included PubMed and Embase from January 1992 to January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they evaluated assessment/scoring tools to screen for hematologic dysfunction and assessed outcomes of mortality, functional status, organ-specific outcomes, or other patient-centered outcomes. Studies of adults or premature infants, animal studies, reviews/commentaries, small case series, and non-English language studies with inability to determine eligibility were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted from each eligible study into a standard data extraction form along with risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included. The systematic review supports the following criteria for hematologic dysfunction: thrombocytopenia (platelet count <100000 cells/µL in patients without hematologic or oncologic diagnosis, platelet count <30000 cells/µL in patients with hematologic or oncologic diagnoses, or platelet count decreased ≥50% from baseline; or leukocyte count <3000 cells/µL; or hemoglobin concentration between 5 and 7 g/dL (nonsevere) or <5 g/dL (severe). LIMITATIONS: Most studies evaluated pre-specified thresholds of cytopenias. No studies addressed associations between the etiology or progression of cytopenias overtime with outcomes, and no studies evaluated cellular function. CONCLUSIONS: Hematologic dysfunction, as defined by cytopenia, is a risk factor for poor outcome in critically ill children, although specific threshold values associated with increased mortality are poorly defined by the current literature.
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 | 0.083 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".