Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unable to nourish themselves orally. In addition, critical illness increases nutrient requirements as well as alters metabolism. Typically, ICU patients rapidly become malnourished unless they are provided with involuntary feeding either through a tube inserted into the GI tract, called enteral nutrition (EN), or directly into the bloodstream, called parenteral nutrition (PN). Between the 1960s and the 1980s, PN was the modality of choice and the premise was that if some is good, more is better, which led to overfeeding regimens called hyperalimentation. Later, the dangers of overfeeding, hyperglycemia, fatty liver, and increased sepsis associated with PN became recognized. In contrast, EN was not associated with these risks and it gradually became the modality of choice in the ICU. However, ICU patients in whom the gastrointestinal tract was nonfunctional (i.e., gut failure) required PN to avoid malnutrition. In addition, EN was shown, on average, to not meet nutrient requirements, and underfeeding was recognized to increase complications because of malnutrition. Hence, the balanced perspective has been reached of using EN when possible but avoiding underfeeding by supplementing with PN when required. This new role for PN is currently being debated and studied. In addition, the relative merits and needs for protein, carbohydrates, lipids, and micronutrients are areas of study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".