Use of a two-bag fluid administration protocol in the treatment of paediatric diabetic ketoacidosis: A retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The 'two-bag method' for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) uses two intravenous fluid bags, only one of which contains 10% dextrose. The bags are run concurrently with rates adjusted according to a rate change table to allow the relative amount of dextrose administered to be adjusted over time, without the need for bag replacements. The Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre (CHLHSC) two-bag protocol is a simplified version of that used by other centres. The objective of this study was to ensure implementation of the CHLHSC two-bag protocol continues to provide safe and effective treatment of paediatric DKA and decreases resource utilization. Methods: This retrospective chart review compared treatment pre- and post-protocol implementation. Results: A total of 22 admissions were included. No significant differences in efficacy or safety outcomes were found between the protocol groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the two and one-bag protocols in time to normalization of serum bicarbonate (13.80 ± 7.68 versus 15.01 ± 7.53 h, P = 0.714), blood glucose correction (8.75 ± 4.86 versus 11.85 ± 4.92 h, P = 0.152), and critical care unit length of stay (24.26 ± 9.94 versus 32.30 ± 13.36, P = 0.399). The nursing staff appeared to appropriately implement the rate change table, but the chart documentation was poor. Conclusions: The CHLHSC simplified two-bag protocol provides a safe and effective alternative to the one-bag protocol for DKA correction in paediatric patients and may also result in decreased resource utilization.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".