Parenteral Fish Oil Lipid Emulsions in the Critically Ill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ω-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids contained in fish oils (FO) possess major anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunologic properties that could be beneficial during critical illness. We hypothesized that parenteral FO-containing emulsions may improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill. METHODS: We searched computerized databases from 1980-2012. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill adult patients that evaluated FO-containing emulsions, either in the context of parenteral nutrition (PN) or enteral nutrition (EN). RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs (n = 390 patients) were included; the mean methodological score of all trials was 10 (range, 6-13). When the results of these studies were aggregated, FO-containing emulsions were associated with a trend toward a reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.04; P = .08; heterogeneity I (2) = 0%) and a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference in days [WMD], -1.41; 95% CI, -3.43 to 0.61; P = .17). However, this strategy had no effect on infections (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42-1.36; P = .35) and intensive care unit length of stay (WMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.95; P = .84, heterogeneity I (2) = 75%). CONCLUSION: FO-containing lipid emulsions may be able to decrease mortality and ventilation days in the critically ill. However, because of the paucity of clinical data, there is inadequate evidence to recommend the routine use of parenteral FO. Large, rigorously designed RCTs are required to elucidate the efficacy of parenteral FO in the critically ill.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".