Immune-modulatory actions of arginine in the critically ill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current trials of immune-enhancing diets suggest several beneficial clinical effects. These products are associated with a reduction in infectious risk, ventilator days, ICU and hospital stay. However, methodological weaknesses limit the inferences we can make from these studies. Furthermore, improvements in outcomes were largely seen in surgical patients and in patients who tolerated critical amounts of formula. We propose that the beneficial findings cannot easily be extrapolated to other patient populations since there is suggestion from clinical trials that the sickest patients, especially those with severest appearances of sepsis, shock and organ failure may not benefit or may even be harmed. In these conditions we hypothesize that systemic inflammation might be undesirably intensified by immune-enhancing nutrients like arginine in critically ill patients. In this paper, we review the purported effects of arginine on the immune system and organ function to understand the scientific rationale for its inclusion into enteral feeding products. We conclude that patients with the most severe appearances of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not receive immune-enhancing substrates which may aggravate systemic inflammation and worsen clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".