An evidence based algorithm for nutritional support accompanied by a multifaceted implementation strategy improved some outcomes in critically ill patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martin CM, Doig GS, Heyland DK, et al for the Southwestern Ontario Critical Care Research Network. Multicentre, cluster-randomized clinical trial of algorithms for critical-care enteral and parenteral therapy (ACCEPT). CMAJ 2004;170:197–204.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In critically ill patients, does implementation of an evidence based algorithm for nutritional support improve the provision of nutritional support and patient outcomes? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: cluster randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: {unblinded}*. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: until hospital discharge. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: intensive care units (ICUs) of 11 community and 3 teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 499 patients aged ⩾16 years (mean age 66 y, 61% men) with an expected ICU stay of ⩾48 hours. Exclusion criteria: expected to be receiving sufficient oral nutrition within 24 hours after ICU admission, admitted for palliative care, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCanadian%2BMedical%2BAssociation%2BJournal%26rft.stitle%253DCMAJ%26rft.aulast%253DMartin%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D170%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D197%26rft.epage%253D204%26rft.atitle%253DMulticentre%252C%2Bcluster-randomized%2Bclinical%2Btrial%2Bof%2Balgorithms%2Bfor%2Bcritical-care%2Benteral%2Band%2Bparenteral%2Btherapy%2B%2528ACCEPT%2529%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14734433%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=170/2/197&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F89.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it