Early nutrition support in the intensive care unit: a US perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early nutrition support, defined as within the first 24-48 h of ICU care, is recommended by clinical practice guidelines. The purpose of this paper is to provide an evidence-based US perspective on early nutrition support in critical illness, explain its mechanism of action, and describe its implementation using combined enteral and parenteral nutrition support. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent American and Canadian guidelines recommend starting enteral nutrition within the first 24-48 h of ICU care. This is mainly due to accrued 'energy debt' from underfeeding in certain patients. This energy debt leads to increased risks of complications and longer lengths of stay. Strong clinical evidence, however, in the form of prospective, randomized, controlled intervention studies of early nutrition support in the setting of routine intensive insulin therapy, is lacking. SUMMARY: Early enteral nutrition should be first-line therapy in the ICU. If a caloric goal of 20-25 kcal/kg/day is not possible, then combined enteral and parenteral nutrition should be started. In the new age of intensive insulin therapy, parenteral nutrition has not been shown to confer significant additional infective risk. There are many unanswered questions, but a proactive posture for metabolic support in the ICU is advocated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".