REducing Deaths due to OXidative Stress (The REDOXS© Study): rationale and study design for a randomized trial of glutamine and antioxidant supplementation in critically-ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critically-ill patients experience an extent of hyperinflammation, cellular immune dysfunction, oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. Supplementation with key nutrients, such as glutamine and antioxidants, is most likely to have a favourable effect on these physiological derangements, leading to an improvement in clinical outcomes. The results of two meta-analyses suggest that glutamine and antioxidants may be associated with improved survival. The purpose of the present paper is to report the background rationale and study protocol for the evaluation of the effect of high-dose glutamine and antioxidant supplementation on mortality in a large-scale randomized trial in 1200 mechanically-ventilated, critically-ill patients. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with clinical evidence of severe organ dysfunction will be randomized to one of four treatments in a 2 x 2 factorial design: (1) glutamine; (2) antioxidant therapy; (3) glutamine and antioxidant therapy; (4) placebo. The primary outcome for this study is 28 d mortality. The secondary outcomes are duration of stay in ICU, adjudicated diagnosis of infection, multiple organ dysfunction, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in hospital and health-related quality of life at 3 and 6 months. A novel design feature is the combined use of parenteral and enteral study nutrients dissociated from the nutrition support. The therapeutic strategies tested in the randomized trial may lead to less morbidity and improved survival in critically-ill patients. The trial will be conducted in approximately twenty tertiary-care ICU in Canada and the first results are expected in 2009.
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 | 0.037 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".