MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368368114 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxac119

Current recommendations for management of paediatric diabetic ketoacidosis

2023· review· en· W4368368114 on OpenAlexaff
Karen E Gripp, Evelyne D Trottier, Sidd Thakore, Jonathan Sniderman, Sarah Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic ketoacidosisResuscitationIntensive care medicineCerebral edemaIncidence (geometry)Fluid replacementLimitingKetoacidosisDiabetes mellitusInsulinType 1 diabetesAnesthesiaInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of paediatric diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) includes careful attention to fluids and electrolytes to minimize the risk of complications such as cerebral injury (CI), which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The incidence of cerebral edema in paediatric DKA has not decreased despite the use of fluid-limiting protocols based on restricting early fluid resuscitation. New evidence suggests that early isotonic fluid therapy does not confer additional risk and may improve outcomes in some patients. Protocols and clinical practice guidelines are being adjusted, with a particular focus on recommendations for initial and ongoing fluids and electrolyte monitoring and replacement. Initial isotonic fluid resuscitation is now recommended for all patients in the first 20 to 30 minutes after presentation, followed by repletion of volume deficit over 36 hours in association with an insulin infusion, electrolyte supplementation, and careful monitoring for and management of potential CI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207