Phase angle as a prognostic indicator in critically ill children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phase angle (PhA) may reflect the integrity of cellular membranes, hydration status, and total body cell mass. Studies have shown that PhA can be used as a good predictor for evaluation of disease severity in critically ill adults. However, there is a lack of studies assessing the association between PhA and clinical outcomes in critically ill children. This systematic review described the association between PhA at pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission with clinical outcomes in critically ill children. The search was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE and LILACS until July 22, 2022. Studies that evaluate the association between PhA at PICU admission in critically ill children and clinical outcomes were eligible. Data regarding population, study design, setting, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) protocol used, PhA classification, and outcome analysis were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Among the 4669 articles screened, five prospective studies were included. The studies have shown association between lower values of PhA at PICU admission with longer PICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, septic shock, and higher mortality risk. Small sample size, different clinical conditions, and methodological differences of the studies regarding BIA equipment and cutoffs of PhA were observed. Although the studies have limitations, the PhA has a potential role in predicting clinical outcomes in critically ill children. Larger studies with standardized PhA protocols and other relevant clinical outcomes are necessary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".