Energy and protein intakes of acute stroke patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although protein-energy malnutrition has been cited as a frequent complication following stroke, there is very little data describing nutritional intake among hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To report: i) the level of protein and energy intake, ii) the adequacy of intake during the first 21 days of hospitalization and iii) to examine the differences in nutritional intake associated with diet type (regular texture, texture-modified and enteral feeding). DESIGN: Prospective observational study of an inception cohort. The energy and protein intakes of well-nourished patients with recent onset of first time stroke were assessed at admission to hospital and at days 7, 11, 14 and 21. Adequacy of energy intake at each of these intervals was expressed as a percentage (actual intake/energy requirement assessed by indirect calorimetry x 100). Adequacy of protein intake was assessed in a similar manner, with 1 g/kg of actual or adjusted body weight used to estimate requirement. The nutritional intakes of patients receiving regular diets, dysphagia diets and enteral tube feedings were compared using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The average energy intakes of the entire study group ranged from 19.4-22.3 Kcals/kg/day over five observation points, representing 80.3-90.9% of measured requirements; protein intake and ranged from 0.81-0.90 g/kg day yielding adequacy of intake of 81-90% of requirement. There were significant differences in energy intakes and/or adequacy of intake of patients receiving different diet types at days 11, 14 and 21 (p < 0.05) and differences in protein intake and/or adequacy of protein intake at all intervals except admission (p < 0.05). Patients receiving enteral tube feedings consumed more calories and protein compared to those patients on regular or dysphagia diets. CONCLUSIONS: On average, newly diagnosed, well-nourished, hospitalized patients consumed 80-91% of their both their energy and protein requirements, in the early post stroke period.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".