Impact of the Magnitude and Timing of Fluid Overload on Outcomes in Critically Ill Children: A Report From the Multicenter International Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina, and Epidemiology (AWARE) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With the recognition that fluid overload (FO) has a detrimental impact on critically ill children, the critical care nephrology community has focused on identifying clinically meaningful targets for intervention. The current study aims to evaluate the epidemiology and outcomes associated with FO in an international multicenter cohort of critically ill children. The current study also aims to evaluate the association of FO at predetermined clinically relevant thresholds and time points (FO ≥ 5% and FO ≥ 10% at the end of ICU days 1 and 2) with outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter, international collaborative of 32 pediatric ICUs. PATIENTS: A total of 5,079 children and young adults admitted consecutively to pediatric ICUs as part of the Assessment of the Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina and Epidemiology Study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The FO thresholds at the time points of interest occurred commonly in the cohort (FO ≥ 5%Day1 in 38.1% [ n = 1753], FO ≥ 10%Day1 in 11.7% [ n = 537], FO ≥ 5%Day2 in 53.3% [ n = 1,539], FO ≥ 10%Day2 in 25.1% [ n = 724]). On Day1, multivariable modeling demonstrated that FO ≥ 5% was associated with fewer ICU-free days, and FO ≥ 10% was associated with higher mortality and fewer ICU and ventilator-free days. On multivariable modeling, FO-peak, Day2 FO ≥ 5%, and Day2 FO ≥ 10% were associated with higher mortality and fewer ICU and ventilator-free days. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that mild-to-moderate FO as early as at the end of ICU Day1 is associated with adverse outcomes. The current study fills an important void in the literature by identifying critical combinations of FO timing and quantity associated with adverse outcomes (FO ≥ 5%Day1, FO ≥10%Day1, FO ≥ 5%Day2, and FO ≥ 10%Day2). Those novel findings will help guide the development of interventional strategies and trials targeting the treatment and prevention of clinically relevant FO.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".