Fluid assessment, fluid balance, and fluid overload in sick children: a report from the Pediatric Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of disorders of fluid balance, including the pathologic state of fluid overload in sick children has become increasingly apparent. With this understanding, there has been a shift from application of absolute thresholds of fluid accumulation to an appreciation of the intricacies of fluid balance, including the impact of timing, trajectory, and disease pathophysiology. METHODS: The 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative was the first to be exclusively dedicated to pediatric and neonatal acute kidney injury (pADQI). As part of the consensus panel, a multidisciplinary working group dedicated to fluid balance, fluid accumulation, and fluid overload was created. Through a search, review, and appraisal of the literature, summative consensus statements, along with identification of knowledge gaps and recommendations for clinical practice and research were developed. CONCLUSIONS: The 26th pADQI conference proposed harmonized terminology for fluid balance and for describing a pathologic state of fluid overload for clinical practice and research. Recommendations include that the terms daily fluid balance, cumulative fluid balance, and percent cumulative fluid balance be utilized to describe the fluid status of sick children. The term fluid overload is to be preserved for describing a pathologic state of positive fluid balance associated with adverse events. Several recommendations for research were proposed including focused validation of the definition of fluid balance, fluid overload, and proposed methodologic approaches and endpoints for clinical trials.
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 | 0.040 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".