MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011280034 · doi:10.1177/0148607114529994

Glutamine and Antioxidants in the Critically Ill Patient

2014· article· en· W2011280034 on OpenAlexafffund
Daren K. Heyland, Gunnar Elke, Mette M. Berger, Paul E. Wischmeyer, Martin Albert, John Muscedere, Gwynne Jones, Andrew G. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonKingston General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGlutaminePlaceboMedicinePost-hoc analysisSubgroup analysisConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineOdds ratioBiologyBiochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The recent large randomized controlled trial of glutamine and antioxidant supplementation suggested that high-dose glutamine is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients with multiorgan failure. The objectives of the present analyses were to reevaluate the effect of supplementation after controlling for baseline covariates and to identify potentially important subgroup effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective factorial 2 × 2 randomized trial conducted in 40 intensive care units in North America and Europe. In total, 1223 mechanically ventilated adult patients with multiorgan failure were randomized to receive glutamine, antioxidants, both glutamine and antioxidants, or placebo administered separate from artificial nutrition. We compared each of the 3 active treatment arms (glutamine alone, antioxidants alone, and glutamine + antioxidants) with placebo on 28-day mortality. Post hoc, treatment effects were examined within subgroups defined by baseline patient characteristics. Logistic regression was used to estimate treatment effects within subgroups after adjustment for baseline covariates and to identify treatment-by-subgroup interactions (effect modification). RESULTS: The 28-day mortality rates in the placebo, glutamine, antioxidant, and combination arms were 25%, 32%, 29%, and 33%, respectively. After adjusting for prespecified baseline covariates, the adjusted odds ratio of 28-day mortality vs placebo was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1, P = .05), 1.2 (0.8-1.8, P = .40), and 1.4 (0.9-2.0, P = .09) for glutamine, antioxidant, and glutamine plus antioxidant arms, respectively. In the post hoc subgroup analysis, both glutamine and antioxidants appeared most harmful in patients with baseline renal dysfunction. No subgroups suggested reduced mortality with supplements. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, early provision of high-dose glutamine administered separately from artificial nutrition was not beneficial and may be associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients with multiorgan failure. For both glutamine and antioxidants, the greatest potential for harm was observed in patients with multiorgan failure that included renal dysfunction upon study enrollment.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations125
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207