MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019218952 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e318226641d

Optimal amount of calories for critically ill patients: Depends on how you slice the cake!*

2011· article· en· W2019218952 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsClinical Evaluation Research UnitKingston General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineCalorieConfidence intervalOdds ratioIntensive care unitIntensive careMedical prescriptionInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The optimal amount of calories required by critically ill patients continues to be controversial. The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between the amount of calories administered and mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, multi-institutional audit. SETTING: Three hundred fifty-two intensive care units from 33 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 7,872 mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients who remained in the intensive care unit for at least 96 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated the association between the amount of calories received and 60-day hospital mortality using various sample restriction and statistical adjustment techniques and demonstrate the influence of the analytic approach on the results. In the initial unadjusted analysis, we observe a significant association between increased caloric intake and increased mortality (odds ratio 1.28; 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.48 for patients receiving more than two-thirds of their caloric prescription vs. those receiving less than one-third of their prescription). Excluding days after permanent progression to oral intake attenuated the estimates of harm (unadjusted analysis: odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.20). Restricting the analysis to patients with at least 4 days in the intensive care unit before progression to oral intake and excluding days of observation after progression to oral intake resulted in a significant benefit to increased caloric intake (unadjusted odds ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.85). When further adjusting for both evaluable days and other important covariates, patients who received more than two-thirds of their caloric prescription are much less likely to die than those receiving less than one-third of their prescription (odds ratio 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.79; p < .0001). When treated as a continuous variable, the overall association between the percent of the caloric prescription received and mortality is highly statistically significant with increasing calories associated with decreasing mortality (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated association between the amount of calories and mortality is significantly influenced by the statistical methodology used. The most appropriate available analyses suggest that attempting to meet caloric targets may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.291 · 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