Pediatric Organ Dysfunction Information Update Mandate (PODIUM) Contemporary Organ Dysfunction Criteria: Executive Summary.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior criteria for organ dysfunction in critically ill children were based mainly on expert opinion. We convened the Pediatric Organ Dysfunction Information Update Mandate (PODIUM) expert panel to summarize data characterizing single and multiple organ dysfunction and to derive contemporary criteria for pediatric organ dysfunction. The panel was composed of 88 members representing 47 institutions and 7 countries. We conducted systematic reviews of the literature to derive evidence-based criteria for single organ dysfunction for neurologic, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, acute liver, renal, hematologic, coagulation, endocrine, endothelial, and immune system dysfunction. We searched PubMed and Embase from January 1992 to January 2020. Study identification was accomplished using a combination of medical subject headings terms and keywords related to concepts of pediatric organ dysfunction. Electronic searches were performed by medical librarians. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the authors reported original data collected in critically ill children; evaluated performance characteristics of scoring tools or clinical assessments for organ dysfunction; and assessed a patient-centered, clinically meaningful outcome. Data were abstracted from each included study into an electronic data extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Consensus was achieved for a final set of 43 criteria for pediatric organ dysfunction through iterative voting and discussion. Although the PODIUM criteria for organ dysfunction were limited by available evidence and will require validation, they provide a contemporary foundation for researchers to identify and study single and multiple organ dysfunction in critically ill children.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".