MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385836735 · doi:10.2196/preprints.51783

A Hospital-Wide Open-Label Cluster Crossover Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial Comparing Normal Saline to Ringer’s Lactate: Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan of The FLUID Trial (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4385836735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia F Shaw, Yongdong Ouyang, Dean Fergusson, Tracy McArdle, Claudio M. Martin, Ian D. Graham, Steven Hawken, Colin J. L. McCartney, Kusum Menon, Raphael Saginur, Andrew Seely, Ian G. Stiell, Alison Fox‐Robichaud, Shane English, John C. Marshall, Kednapa Thavorn, Monica Taljaard, Lauralyn McIntyre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialDialysisEmergency medicineCrossover studyRenal replacement therapyCluster (spacecraft)PlaceboIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Normal saline (NS) and Ringer’s lactate (RL) are the most common crystalloids given to hospitalized patients. Despite concern about possible harm associated with NS (eg, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis, impaired kidney function, and death), few large multicenter randomized trials focused on critically ill patients have compared these fluids. Uncertainty exists about the effects of these fluids on clinically important outcomes across all hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE The FLUID trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, 2×2 cluster crossover comparative effectiveness randomized trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-wide policy that stocks either NS or RL as the main crystalloid fluid in 16 hospitals across Ontario, Canada. METHODS All hospitalized adult and pediatric patients (anticipated sample size 144,000 patients) with an incident admission to the hospital over the course of each study period will be included. Either NS or RL will be preferentially stocked throughout the hospital for 12 weeks before crossing to the alternate fluid for the subsequent 12 weeks. The primary outcome is a composite of death and hospital readmission within 90 days of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes include death, hospital readmission, dialysis, reoperation, postoperative reintubation, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and discharge to a facility other than home. All outcomes will be obtained from health administrative data, eliminating the need for individual case reports. The primary analysis will use cluster-level summaries to estimate cluster-average treatment effects. RESULTS The statistical analysis plan has been prepared “a priori” in advance of receipt of the trial data set from ICES and any analyses. CONCLUSIONS We describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes for the FLUID trial. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04512950; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04512950 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/51783

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.010

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207