Optimizing energy and protein balance in the ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Perhaps now more than ever, appropriate nutrition delivery in the ICU is a highly debated issue. Nutrition guidelines for ICU patients by European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism in Europe, The Canadian Nutrition Guidelines, and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in the USA continue to disagree about the need to feed early and how. Most ICU patients around the world appear to be poorly fed. RECENT FINDINGS: Most studies have focussed on energy supply by enteral or parenteral nutrition. Some studies suggest that late initiation of energy supply could be beneficial. However, studies still not provide the answer as to when and how to feed the patient. A few studies have now also focussed on protein supply. Studies agree on the importance of adequate protein supply, 1.2-2.0 g/kg, for outcome. In fact, early protein supply might be more important than energy supply; however, limited data are available. SUMMARY: These findings implicate that optimization of protein balance in ICU patients as well as energy balance will improve outcome. In clinical practice, protein targets for patients should be set and achieved. More research is needed to define when and how to best feed the ICU patient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".