The Canadian Critical Care Nutrition Guidelines in 2013
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
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances, and are designed to minimize practice variation, improve costs, and improve clinical outcomes. The Canadian Critical Care Practice Guidelines (CCPGs) were first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2013. A total of 68 new randomized controlled trials were identified since the last version in 2009, 50 of them published between 2009 and 2013. The remaining articles were trials published before 2009 but were not identified in previous iterations of the CCPGs. For clinical practice guidelines to be useful to practitioners, they need to be up-to-date and be reflective of the current body of evidence. Herein we describe the process by which the CCPGs were updated. This process resulted in 10 new sections or clinical topics. Of the old clinical topics, 3 recommendations were upgraded, 4 were downgraded, and 27 remained the same. To influence decision making at the bedside, these updated guidelines need to be accompanied by active guideline implementation strategies. Optimal implementation strategies should be guided by local contextual factors including barriers and facilitators to best practice recommendations. Moreover, evaluating and monitoring performance, such as participating in the International Nutrition Survey of practice, should be part of any intensive care unit's performance improvement strategy. The active implementation of the updated CCPGs may lead to better nutrition care and improved patient outcomes in the critical care setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it