The Ins and Outs of IV Fluids in Hemodynamic Resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Concise definitive review of the physiology of IV fluid (IVF) use in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Available literature on PubMed and MEDLINE databases. STUDY SELECTION: Basic physiology studies, observational studies, clinical trials, and reviews addressing the physiology of IVF and their use in the critically ill were included. DATA EXTRACTION: None. DATA SYNTHESIS: We combine clinical and physiologic studies to form a framework for understanding rational and science-based use of fluids and electrolytes. CONCLUSIONS: IVF administration is among the most common interventions for critically ill patients. IVF can be classified as crystalloids or colloids, and most crystalloids are sodium salts. They are frequently used to improve hemodynamics during shock states. Many recent clinical trials have sought to understand which kind of IVF might lead to better patient outcomes, especially in sepsis. Rational use of IVF rests on understanding the physiology of the shock state and what to expect IVF will act in those settings. Many questions remain unanswered, and future research should include a physiologic understanding of IVF in study design.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".