MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990081775 · doi:10.3390/nu4111554

Enteral Nutrition Support in Burn Care: A Review of Current Recommendations as Instituted in the Ross Tilley Burn Centre

2012· review· en· W1990081775 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Hall, Shahriar Shahrokhi, Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnteral administrationMedicineIntensive care medicineBurn injuryParenteral nutritionMicronutrientPopulationBurn outGerontologyEnvironmental healthSurgeryNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure to adequately address the increased levels of inflammatory mediators, catecholamines and corticosteroids central to the hypermetabolic response post burn injury can lead to catastrophic results. One of the most important perturbations is provision of adequate and early nutrition. The provision of the right balance of macro and micronutrients, along with additional antioxidants is essential to mitigating the hypermetabolic and hypercatabolic state that results following a burn injury. As it is now widely accepted that enteral feeding is best practice for the burn population research has been more closely examining the individual components of enteral nutrition support. Recently fat to carbohydrate ratios, glutamine and antioxidants have made up the balance of this focus. This paper provides a review of the most recent literature examining each of these components and discusses the practices adopted in the Ross Tilley Burn Centre at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207