A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia is a frequent occurrence in adult hospitalized patients who receive nutrition support. Both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia (resulting from attempts to correct hyperglycemia) are associated with adverse outcomes in diabetic as well as nondiabetic patients. This American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) Clinical Guideline summarizes the most current evidence and provides guidelines for the desired blood glucose goal range in hospitalized patients receiving nutrition support, the definition of hypoglycemia, and the rationale for use of diabetes-specific enteral formulas in hospitalized patients. METHOD: A systematic review of the best available evidence to answer a series of questions regarding glucose control in adults receiving parenteral or enteral nutrition was undertaken and evaluated using concepts adopted from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. A consensus process was used to develop the clinical guideline recommendations prior to external and internal review and approval by the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: 1. What is the desired blood glucose goal range in adult hospitalized patients receiving nutrition support? We recommend a target blood glucose goal range of 140-180 mg/dL (7.8-10 mmol/L). (Strong) 2. How is hypoglycemia defined in adult hospitalized patients receiving nutrition support? We recommend that hypoglycemia be defined as a blood glucose concentration of <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L). (Strong) 3. Should diabetes-specific enteral formulas be used for adult hospitalized patients with hyperglycemia? We cannot make a recommendation at this time.
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 | 0.023 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.032 |
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".