MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029844498 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181691502

Validation of a predictive method for an accurate assessment of resting energy expenditure in medical mechanically ventilated patients*

2008· article· en· W2029844498 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Savard, Christophe Faisy, Nicolas Lerolle, Emmanuel Guérot, Jean‐Luc Diehl, Jean-Yves Fagon

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResting energy expenditureLimits of agreementEnergy expenditureMedicineCalorimetryBland–Altman plotBasal metabolic rateNuclear medicineStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Use comparison with indirect calorimetry to confirm the ability of our previously described equation to predict resting energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: Prospective, validation study. SETTING: Eighteen-bed, medical intensive care unit at a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All adult patients intubated >24 hrs were assessed for eligibility. Exclusion criteria were clinical situations that could contribute to erroneous calorimetric measurements. INTERVENTIONS: Resting energy expenditure was calculated using the original Harris-Benedict equations and those corrected for usual stress factors, the Swinamer equation, the Fusco equation, the Ireton-Jones equation, and our equation: resting energy expenditure (kcal/day) = 8 x weight (kg) + 14 x height (cm) + 32 x minute ventilation (L/min) + 94 x temperature (degrees C) - 4834. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Resting energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry for the 45 included patients. Resting energy expenditure calculated with our predictive model correlated with the measured resting energy expenditure (r2 = .62, p < .0001), and Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of -192 +/- 277 kcal/day, with limits of agreement ranging from -735 to 351 kcal/day. Resting energy expenditure calculated with the Harris-Benedict equations was more weakly correlated with measured resting energy expenditure (r2 = .41, p < .0001), with Bland-Altman analysis showing a mean bias of 279 +/- 346 kcal/day between them and the limits of agreement ranging from -399 to 957 kcal/day. Applying usual stress-correction factors to the Harris-Benedict equations generated wide variability, and the correlation with measured resting energy expenditure was poorer (r2 = .18, p < .0001), with Bland-Altman analysis showing a mean bias of -357 +/- 750 kcal/day and limits of agreement ranging from -1827 to 1113 kcal/day. The use of the Swinamer, Fusco, or Ireton-Jones predictive methods yielded weaker correlation between calculated and measured resting energy expenditure (r2 = .41, p < .0001; r2 = .38, p < .0001; r2 = .39, p < .0001, respectively) than our equation, and Bland-Altman analysis showed no improvement in agreement and variability between methods. CONCLUSIONS: The Faisy equation, based on static (height), less stable (weight), and dynamic biometric variables (temperature and minute ventilation), provided precise and unbiased resting energy expenditure estimations in mechanically ventilated 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207