Optimizing Nutrition in Intensive Care Units: Empowering Critical Care Nurses to Be Effective Agents of Change
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
Observational studies have consistently revealed wide variation in nutritional practices across intensive care units and indicated that the provision of adequate nutrition to critically ill patients is suboptimal. To date, the potential role of critical care nurses in implementing nutritional guideline recommendations and improving nutritional therapy has received little consideration. Factors that influence nurses' nutritional practices include the lack of guidelines or conflicting evidence-based recommendations pertaining to nurses' practice, strategies for implementing guidelines that are not tailored to barriers nurses face when feeding patients, strategies to communicate best evidence that do not capitalize on nurses' preference for seeking information through social interaction, prioritization of nutrition in initial and continuing nursing education, and a lack of interdisciplinary team collaboration in the intensive care unit when decisions on how to feed patients are made. Future research and quality improvement strategies are required to correct these deficits and successfully empower nurses to become nutritional champions at the bedside. Using nurses as agents of change will help standardize nutritional practices and ensure that critically ill patients are optimally fed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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